Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924092359995 
 
I^xanpttm of i\it 
 
 THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION FUND. 
 
 As it is important that the best results of recent theological 
 investigations on the Continent, conducted without reference to 
 doctrinal considerations, and with the sole purpose of arriving at 
 truth, should be placed within the reach of English readers, it is 
 proposed to collect, by Subscriptions and Donations, a Fund 
 which shall be employed for the promotion of this object. A 
 good deal has been already effected in the way of translating 
 foreign theological literature, a series of works from the pens of 
 Hengstenberg, Haevernick, Delitzsch, Keil, and others of the 
 same school, having of late years been published in English; 
 but — as the names of the authors just mentioned will at once 
 suggest to those who are conversant with the subject — the 
 tendency of these works is for the most part conservative. It 
 is a theological literature of a more independent character, less 
 biassed by dogmatical prepossessions, a literature which is repre- 
 sented by such works as those of Ewald, Hupfeld, F. 0. Baur, 
 2eller, Eothe, Keim, Schrader, Hausrath, Noldeke, Pfleiderer, 
 &c., in Germany, and by those of Kuenen, Scholten, and others, 
 in Holland, that it is desirable to render accessible to English- 
 readers who are not familiar with the languages of the Continent. 
 The demand for works of this description is not as yet so widely 
 extended among either the clergy or the laity of Great Britain 
 as to render it practicable for publishers to bring them out in 
 any considerable numbers at their own risk. And for this reason 
 the publication of treatises of this description can only be secured 
 by obtaining the co-operation of the friends of free and unbiassed 
 theological inquiry. 
 
 It is hoped that at least such a number of Subscribers of One 
 Gruinea Annually may be obtained as may render it practicable 
 for the Publishers, as soon as the scheme is fairly set on foot, to 
 
bring out every year three ?:V0 volumes, which each Subscrilier 
 of the above amount would be entitled to receive gratis, tint 
 as it will be necessary to obtain, and to remunerate, the services 
 of a responsible Editor, and in general, if not invariably, to pay 
 the translators, it would conduce materiaUy to the speedy suc- 
 cess of the design, if free donations were also made to the lund ; 
 or if contributors were to subscribe for more than one copy of 
 the works to be pubUshed. 
 
 If you approve of this scheme, you are requested to commu- 
 nicate with Messrs. WHliams and Norgate, 14, Henrietta Street, 
 Covent Garden, London, and to state whether you are willing to 
 subscribe; and if you are disposed to assist further, what would 
 be the amount of your donation, or the number of additional 
 copies of the publications which you would take. 
 We are, your obedient servants, 
 
 JOHN TULLOCH, H. J. S. SMITH, 
 
 H. B. WILSON, H. SIDGWICK, 
 
 B. JOWETT, JAMES HEYWOOD, 
 
 A. P. STANLEY, C. KEGAN PAUL, 
 
 W. G. CLAKK, J. ALLAXSON PIGTON, 
 
 S. DAVIDSON, KOBT. WALLACE, 
 
 JAMES MARTINEAU, LEWIS CAMPBELL, 
 
 JOHN CAIKD, EUSSELL MAETINEAU, 
 
 EDWARD GATED, T. K. CHEYi^E, 
 
 JAMES DONALDSON, J. MUIE. 
 
 A Committee selected from the signataries of the original 
 Prospectus agreed upon the works to commence the series. Of 
 these, the following were published in 
 
 The First Year (1873) : 3 vols., 21s. 
 
 1. EJBiM (Th.), Histoby of Jesus of N'azara. Considered ia its 
 
 connection with the National Life of Israel, and related in 
 detail. Second Edition, re-translated by Arthur Ransom. 
 Vol. I. Introduction; Survey of Sources; 'Sacred and Pohtical 
 Groundwork ; Eeligious Groundwork. 
 
 2. Bade (F. C), Paul, the Apostle op Jesus Christ, his Life 
 
 and Work, Ms Epistles and Doctrine. A Contribution to a 
 Critical History of Primitive Christianity. Second Edition, by 
 Eev. Allan Menzies. Vol. I. 
 
 3. Kuenen (A.), The Relioion of Israel to the Fall of the 
 
 Jewish State. Translated by A. H. May. Vol. I. 
 
The Second Year (1874) : 3 vols., 21s. 
 
 4. Kubnen's Eeligion of Israel. Vol. II. Translated by A. H, 
 
 May. 
 
 5. Blbek's Lectures on the Apocalypse. Edited by the Eev. Dr. 
 
 S. Davidson. 
 
 6. Baur's Paul ; the second and concluding volume. Translated by 
 
 the Eev. Allan Menzies. 
 
 The Third Year (1875): 3 vols., 21s. 
 
 7. Kuenen's Eeligion op Israel ; the third and concluding volume. 
 
 8. Zellbr, The Acts op the Apostles critically examined. To 
 
 which is prefixed, Overbeok's Introduction from Do Wette's 
 Handbook, translated by Joseph Dare, B.A. Vol. I. 
 
 9. Ewald's Commentary on the Prophets op the Old Testament. 
 
 Translated by the Eev. J. Frederick Smith. Vol. I. General 
 Introduction ; Yoel, Amos, Hosea, and Zakharya 9 — 1 1. 
 
 The Fourth Year (1876) : 3 vols., 21s. 
 
 10. Zeller's Acts op the Apostles. Vol. II. and last. 
 
 11. Keim's History of Jesus op Nazara. Vol. II. Translated by 
 
 the Eev. E. M. Geldart. The Sacred Youth ; Self-recognition ; 
 Decision. 
 
 12. Ewald's Prophets of the Old Testament. Vol. II. Yesaya, 
 
 Obadya, MUcha. 
 
 The Fifth Year (1877) : 3 vols., 21s. 
 
 13. Paulinism: a Contribution to the History of Primitive Christian 
 15. Theology. By Professor 0. Plieiderer, of Jena. Translated by 
 
 E. Peters. 2 vols. 
 
 14. Keim's History op Jesus op ISTazara. Translated by A. Eansom, 
 
 Vol. III. The First Preaching; th 
 Disciples ; and the Apostolic Mission. 
 
 Vol. III. The First Preaching ; the Works of Jesus ; the 
 
 The Sixth Year (1878) : 3 vols., 21s. 
 
 16. Baur's (F. C), Church History of the First Three Centuries. 
 
 Translated from the third German Edition. Edited by the 
 Eev. Allan Menzies (in 2 vols.). Vol. I. 
 
 17. Hausrath's History op the New Testament Times. The 
 
 Time of Jesus. Translated by the Eevds. C T. Poynting and 
 P. Quenzer (in 2 vols.). Vol. I. 
 
 18. Ewald's Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testament. 
 
 Translated by the Eev. J. Frederick Smith. Vol. III. Nahum, 
 Ssephanya, Habaqquq, Zakharya 12 — 14, Yeremya. 
 
The Seventh Year (1879) : 3 vols., 21s. ... 
 
 19. Keim's History of Jesus op Nazaba. Vol. IV. Ihe uamean 
 
 Storms ; Signs of the approaching FaU ; Eeoognition ot ine 
 Messiah. 
 
 20. Baur's Church History. Vol. II. and last. r-ir ti • 1 
 
 21. Ewald's Commentary on the Prophets. Vol. IV. Hezeqiei, 
 
 Yesaya xl. — Ixvi. 
 
 The Eighth Year (1880) : 3 vols., 21s. 
 
 22. Hausrath's New Testament Times. The Time of Jesus. VoL 
 
 II. and last. i. v -d 
 
 23. Ewald's Commentary on the Psalms. Translated by the Kev. 
 
 24. E. Johnson, M.A. 2 vols. 
 
 The Ninth Year (1881) : 3 vols., 21s. 
 
 25. Ebim's History op Jesus of IS'azara. Vol. V. The :\Iessianic 
 
 Progress to Jerusalem. 
 
 26. Ewald's Commentary on the Prophets. Vol. V. and last. 
 
 Haggai, Zakharya, Malaki, Yona, Barukh, Daniel. 
 
 27. A Protestant Commentary on the Books op the Xew Tes- 
 
 tament : with General and Special Introductions. Edited by 
 Professors P. W. Schmidt and F. von Holzendorff. Translated 
 from the Third German Edition by the Eev. F. H. Jones, B.A. 
 (in 3 vols.). Vol. I. Matthew to Acts. 
 
 The Tenth Year (1882) : 3 vols., 21s. 
 
 28. Ewald's Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated hy the 
 
 Eev. J. Frederick Smith (in 1 vol.). 
 
 29. Protestant Commentary. Vol. II. The Pauline Epistles to 
 
 Galatians. 
 
 30. Keim's History of Jesus of Xazara. Vol. VI. and last. 
 
 The Eleventh Year (1883-84) : 3 vols., 21s. 
 
 31. Protestant Commentary. Vol. III. and last. 
 
 32. Ebvillb (Professor Alb., D.D.) Prolegomena of the History 
 
 OP Ebligions. Translated by A. S. Squire. With an Intro- 
 duction by Professor ISIax ]SIiiller. 
 
 33. Schrader (Professor E., D.D.) The Cuneiform Inscriptions 
 
 AND THE Old Testament. Translated by Professor Owen C. 
 Whitehouse. Vol. I. Map. 
 
 The Twelfth Year (1885-86) : 
 
 34. Ppleiderer (Professor O.) The Philosophy of Eeligion on the 
 
 Basis of its History. Translated by the Eev. Alex. Stewart 
 and the Eev. Allan Menzies. Vol. I. Spinoza to Schleiermacher. 
 Beyond these, the following Works are in the hands of Trans- 
 lators, and will be included in the next years' Subscriptions : 
 
 Schrader (Professor E.) The Old Testament and Cuneiform 
 Inscriptions. Vol. II. 
 
 Ppleiderer's Philosophy op Eeligion. Translated by the Kev. 
 Alexander Stewart, of Dundee, and the Eev. Allan MftiiT^Ps' 
 Vols. II.— IV. ivieuzies 
 
CONTENTS OF THE 
 
 THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION FUND LTBRARY. 
 
 A Selection of Six or more volumes may he had on direct application 
 to the Publishers, at Is. per volume. 
 
 1. Baur (P. C.) Church History of the First Three 
 
 Centuries. Translated from the Third German Edition. Edited 
 by the Rev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. 8vo. 2 Is. 
 
 2. Baur (F. 0.) Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, his 
 
 Life and Work, his Epistles and Doctrine. A Contribution to 
 a Critical History of Primitive Christianity. Second Edition. 
 By the Eev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. 21s. 
 
 3. Bleek's Lectures on the Apocalypse, Edited by the 
 
 Rev. Dr. S. Davidson. 10s. 6d. 
 
 4. Ewald (H.) Commentary on the Prophets of the 
 
 Old Testament. Vol. I. Yoel, Amos, Hosea, Zakharya, c. 9 — 12. 
 Vol. II. Yesaya, Obadya, Mikha. Vol. III. Nahum, Ssephanya, 
 Habaqquq, Zakharya, c. 12 — 14, Yeremya. Vol. IV. Hezeqiel, 
 Yesaya, c. 40 — 66. Vol. V. Anonymous Pieces, Haggai, Zak- 
 harya, Malaki, Yona, Barukh, Daniel, Index. Translated by 
 the Rev. J. Frederick Smith. 5 vols. 8vo. Each 10s. %d. 
 
 5. Ewald (H.) Commentary on the Psalms. Translated 
 
 by.the Rev. E. Johnson, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo. Each 10s. Qd. 
 
 6. Ewald (H.) Commentary on the Book of Job, with 
 
 Translation by Professor H. Ewald. Translated from the 
 German by the Rev. J. Frederick Smith. 1 vol. 8vo. 10s. &d. 
 
 7. Hausrath (Professor A.) History of the New Tes- 
 
 tament Times. The Time of Jesus. By Dr. A. Hausrath, Pro- 
 fessor of Theology, Heidelberg. Translated, with the Author's 
 sanction, from the Second German Edition, by the Revs. C. T. 
 Poynting and P. Quenzer. 2 vols. 8vo. 21s. 
 
 8. Keim (Th.) History of Jesus of Nazara. Considered 
 
 in its connection with the National Life of Israel, and related 
 in detail. Vol. I. Survey of Sources, Paul, Gospels, the Sacred 
 Groundwork. Vol. II. The Sacred Youth, Self-recognition, 
 and Decision. Vol. III. The Galilean Springtime. Vol. IV. 
 The Galilean Storms, Recognition of the Messiah. Vol. V. The 
 Messianic Progress to Jerusalem, the Decisive Struggle, the 
 Farewell, the Last Supper. Vol. VI. The Messianic Death, 
 Burial and Resurrection, the Messianic Place in History. Trans- 
 lated by Arthur Ransom and the Rev. E. M. Geldart. 6 vols. 
 8vo. Each 10s. 6d 
 
9. Kuenen (A.) The Religion of Israel to the Pall of 
 
 the Jewish State. Translated by A. H. May. 3 vols, evo, 
 31s. U. 
 
 10. Pfleiderer (Professor O.) Paulinism: a Contribution to 
 
 the History of Primitive Christian Theology. Translated by 
 E. Peters. 2 vols. 21s. 
 
 1 1 . Pfleiderer (Professor O.) The Philosophy of ReUgion 
 
 on the Basis of its History. I. History ot the Philosophy of 
 Eeligion from Spinoza to the present Day. Vol. I. Spinoza to 
 Schleiermacher. Translated by the Eev. Allan ^Nlenzies and 
 the Eev. Alex. Stewart, of Dundee. 10«. 6rf. (Vol. II. in the 
 Press.) 
 
 12. Protestant Oommentary on the New Testament; 
 
 with General and Special Introductions to the Books, by Lip- 
 sius, Holsten, Lang, Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, and 
 others. Vol. I. Introduction, the Gospels, the Acts. Vol. IL 
 Epistles to the Eomans, Corinthians, Galatians. Vol. III. 
 Ephesians, Pliilippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Pastoral 
 Epistles, Eevelations. Translated by the Eev. F. H. Jones. 
 3 vols. 8vo. 31s. 6d 
 
 13. Reville (Rev. Dr.) Prolegomena of the History of 
 
 Eeligion, with Introduction by Professor Max Miiller. 10». 6c?. 
 
 14. Schrader (Professor E.) The Old Testament and 
 
 the Cuneiform Inscriptions. Translated by the Eev. Owen C. 
 Whitehouse. (In 2 vols.) Vol I. Map. 10s. M. (Vol. IL 
 in the Press.) 
 
 15. Zeller (E.) The Acts of the Apostles Critically 
 
 Examined. To which is prefixed Overbeck's Introduction from 
 De Wette's Handbook. Translated by Joseph Dare. 2 vols. 
 8vo. 21s. 
 
 The price of the "Works to Subscribers, 7s. per vol. 
 Worlcs in the Press : 
 
 Pfleiderer (Professor O.) The Philosophy of Reli- 
 gion. Translated by the Eev. Alexander Stewart, of Dundee, 
 and the Eev. Allan Menzies. Vols. IL— IV. 
 
 Schrader's Old Testament and Cuneiform Inscrip- 
 tions, Vol. II. -^ 
 
 All new Subscribers may purchase any of the previous volumes at 
 7s. instead of 10s. 6d per volume. A selection of six or more volumes 
 may also be had at the Subscriber's price, or 7s. per volume, upon 
 direct application to the Publishers. ^ 
 
THE HIBBEET LEOTUEES. 
 
 1886.— Professor J. Rhys. Lectures on the Origin and 
 
 Growth of Eeligion as illustrated in Celtic Heathendom. 8vo, 
 cloth. 10s. 6d. 
 
 1885.— Professor O. Pfleiderer. Lectures on the Influence 
 
 of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity. Trans- 
 lated by the Eev. J. F. Smith. 8vo, cloth. 10s. Qd. 
 
 1884.— Professor Albert Reville. Lectures on the Ancient 
 
 Eeligions of Mexico and Peru. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. 
 
 1883.— The Rev. Charles Beard. Lectures on the Refor- 
 mation of the Sixteenth Century in its Eelation to Modem 
 Thought and Knowledge. 8vo, cloth. 10s. Qd. (Cheap Edition, 
 4s. 6d.) 
 
 1882. — Professor Kuenen. Lectures on National Reli- 
 gions and Universal Eeligions. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. 
 
 1881.— T. W. Rhys Davids. Lectures on the Origin and 
 
 Growth of Eeligion as illustrated by some Points in the History 
 of Indian Buddhism. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. 
 
 1880. — M. Ernest Renan. On the Influence of the Insti- 
 tutions, Thought and Culture of Eome on Christianity, and the 
 Development of the Catholic Church. Translated by the Eev. 
 Charles Beard. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. (Cheap Edition, 2s. 6d.) 
 
 1879. —P. Le Page Renouf. Lectures on the Origin and 
 
 Growth of Eeligion as illustrated by the Eeligion of Ancient 
 Egypt. Second Edition. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d'. 
 
 1878.— Professor Max Miiller. Lectures on the Origin 
 
 and Growth of Eeligion as illustrated by the Eeligions of India. 
 Svo, cloth. 10s. 6d. 
 
Works published hy the Hibbert Trustees. 
 
 Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought in the Departments 
 of Theology and Ecclesiastical Politics. By Eeoinald Lane Poole, M.A., Balliol 
 College, Oxford, Ph.D. Leipzig. 8vo, cloth. 10s. M. 
 
 The Objectivity of Truth. By George J. Stokes, B.A., Senior Mode- 
 rator and Gold Medallist, Trinity College, Dublin; late Hibbert Travelling 
 Scholar. 8vo, cloth. 6«. 
 
 An Essay on Assyriology. By George Evans, M.A., Hibbert FeUow, 
 
 With an Assyrian Tablet in Cuneiform Type. 8vo, cloth. 5«. 
 
 The Development from Kant to Hegel, with Chapters on the Philo- 
 sophy of Religion. By Andrew Seth, Assistant to the Professor of Logic and 
 Metaphysics, Edinburgh University. Svo, cloth. 5s. 
 
 Kantian Ethics and the Ethics of Evolution. A Critical Study by 
 J. GoDLD ScHnnMAN, M.A., D.Sc, Professor of Logic and Metaphysics in Acadia 
 College, Nova Scotia. Svo, cloth. 5s. 
 
 The Eesurrection of Jesus Christ. An Essay, in Three Chapters. By 
 Beqinald W. Maoan, Christ Church, Oxford. Svo, cloth. 5«. 
 
 The Ecclesiastical Institutions of Holland, treated with Special Eefer- 
 ence to the Position and Prospects of the Modem School of Theology. By the 
 Rev. P. H. WiOKSTEED, M.A. Svo. Is. 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NOEGATE, 
 
 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON; 
 Ahd 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 
 
THEOLOGICAL 
 TRANSLATION FUND LIBRARY. 
 
 PAUL 
 
 HIS LIFE AND WOEKS. 
 By F. C. BAUR 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
PAUL 
 
 T 
 
 THE APOSTLE OF JESUS CHmST, 
 HIS LIFE AND WORK, HIS EPISTLES AND HIS DOCTRINE. 
 
 A CONTRIBUTION 
 
 TO A 
 
 CEITICAL HISTORY OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 BY 
 
 DR FERDINAND CHEISTIAN BAUR, 
 
 Propessob of Theology in the University of Tubingen. 
 
 TRANSLATED FBOM THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION, 
 EDITED AFTER THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR BY 
 
 DR. EDUARD ZELLER. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 REVISED BY REV. A. MENZIES. 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 
 
 14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON; 
 
 AND 20 SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 
 
 187 6. 
 

 //'^fkrt 
 
 UN^VEiiSSTY 
 
 T. AND A. CONSTABLE, PKINTEBS TO HER SlAJESTt, 
 / 
 
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION (1845). 
 
 For a considerable number of years I have been engaged in 
 critical investigations chiefly of the Pauline Epistles and the Acts, 
 with a view to a better understanding of the life and work of the 
 Apostle Paul, and of his historical position and importance. The 
 first fruits of these studies appeared in the year 1831, in the 
 Tiibinger Zeitschrift fiir Theologie, 1831, p. 4, and was an essay 
 entitled " The Christ-party in the Corinthian Church, the opposition 
 of Petrine and Pauline Christianity in the Primitive Church, the 
 Apostle Peter in Eome." In this paper I advanced the assertion 
 which I have since maintained and furnished with additional 
 evidence, that the harmonious relation which is commonly assumed 
 to have existed between the Apostle Paul and the Jewish 
 Christians with the older Apostles at their head, is unhistorical, 
 and that the conflict of the two parties whom we have to recog- 
 nise upon this field entered more deeply into the life of the 
 early Church than has been hitherto supposed. Many points of 
 this essay were noticed by Neander in the first edition of his 
 " Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles," 
 which appeared soon afterwards, in 1832 ; and it certainly did 
 something to bring about a better understanding of several questions 
 of early Church History. The road which had thus been opened 
 
vi PliEFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 soon led me to further results, which I laid before the world m 
 my work on the Pastoral Epistles, 1835, and in the essay on the 
 Epistle to the Eomans, Tub. Ztschr. ftir Theol. 1836, Part 3. 
 
 I have long meant to republish the two essays which appeared 
 in our Magazine here, uniting them into a connected work with 
 other cognate discussions. This is what the reader now has before 
 him ; in fact the greatly extended compass of the present work 
 entitles it to the position of a monograph on the Apostle PauL It 
 may also claim to be a special examination of a movement in the 
 early development of Christianity, the proper understanding of 
 which is certainly surrounded with great difficulties, but is never- 
 theless indispensable for the solution of the great question of our 
 time, what Christianity originally was, and essentially is. 
 
 I may assume that my method of historical criticism is well 
 known. The doubtful honour has lately been paid me of being 
 called the founder and master of a new critical school ; against 
 which, even if I thought the compliment was seriously intended, 
 I could do nothing but protest. It would be a poor account of 
 former criticism, if the principles I have followed could with 
 justice be called new ones. It cannot be the novelty of the 
 principles that has given offence ; it must be the results to which 
 they lead when well applied, which have caused the criticism of 
 the new school to be called negative and destructive, ^^^lat do 
 these formidable epithets amount to ? What would criticism he 
 if denuded of the right to deny and to destroy ? The question can 
 only be, what is denied, what is destroyed, and if there is good 
 reason for doing it. And is not that criticism, which is held to he 
 nothing but negative and destructive, really in the best sense con- 
 servative ? Does it not proceed on the simple principle that every 
 man is to get and to keep what belongs to him, and nothinc^ but 
 
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. vii 
 
 what belongs to him ? To this limitation the conservative principle 
 is essentially subject, and feeling this, I can have no wish to ac- 
 knowledge claims which are indefensible, to defend traditional 
 opinions which are unfounded and untrue, or to ignore contra- 
 dictions which are evident and palpable. There are distinctions 
 and differences which require to be clearly set forth, if the 
 matter in hand is to be understood at all; and I cannot be a 
 party to smoothing them over and obliterating them, in order to 
 keep things comfortable on the surface, and save the labour of 
 thought. If this negative and destructive road has led me to 
 results which conflict with the ordinary conceptions, let it be shown 
 that they are wrong ; let them be examined and refuted, if that is 
 possible, let them be denied and destroyed by the power of facts 
 and arguments, if any one feels that he can do so ! 
 
 There is no limit to controversy on points of detail. The abstract 
 possibility of this and that detail can never be disproved : but 
 this is not the way to dispose of a comprehensive historical theory. 
 Such a theory appeals to its broad general truth, to which details 
 are subordinate, and on which they depend : to the logical co- 
 herence of the whole, the preponderating inner probability and 
 necessity of the case, as it impresses itself quietly upon the 
 thoughtful mind ; and against this the party interests of the day 
 will sooner or later cease to assert themselves. In this conviction 
 I leave this work to make its own way. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction. — The Standpoint of the Inquiry— The Acts 
 of the Apostles as the source of the Apostle Paul's 
 History — Division of the whole subject, . 1 
 
 JTtrst Part. 
 
 THE LIFE AND WOEK OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Chaptek I. 
 
 The Church at Jerusalem before the Apostle's Conversion 
 
 (Acts of the Apostles iii. -v.), . . . 15 
 
 Chaptek II. 
 
 Stephen the Predecessor of the Apostle Paul (Acts of the 
 
 Apostles vi. vii.), ... . 42 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 The Conversion of the Apostle Paul (Acts of the Apostles 
 
 ix., xxii., xxvi.), ..... 61 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter IV. p^„. 
 
 The First Missionary Journey of the Apostle (Acts of the 
 
 Apostles xiii. xiv.), . 90 
 
 Chaptee V. 
 
 The Transactions between the Apostle Paul and the elder 
 Apostles at Jerusalem (Acts of the Apostles xv., 
 Galatians ii.), . ]05 
 
 Chapter YI. 
 
 The Second Missionary Journey of the Apostle (Acts of 
 
 the Apostles xvi.), 14g 
 
 Chapter YII. 
 The Apostle in Athens, Corinth, Ephesus— His Journey 
 to Jerusalem by Miletus (Acts of the Apostles 
 xvii.-xx.), _ 168 
 
 Chapter VIII. 
 
 The Arrest of the Apostle in Jerusalem (Acts of the 
 
 Apostles xxL), , „, 
 
 Chapter IX. 
 The Apostle in Eome-His Imprisonment and Martyrdom, 216 
 
CONTENTS. xi 
 
 .ScconlJ ^art. 
 
 THE EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction, . . 245 
 
 First Class of Pauline Epistles. 
 The Epistles to the Galatians, tlie Corinthians, and the Romans. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 The Epistle to the Galatians, . . .250 
 
 Chapter II. 
 The two Epistles to the Corinthians, . . . . 258 
 
 Chapter III. 
 The Epistle to the Eomans, . . . 308 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE STANDPOINT OF THE INQUIRY— THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AS 
 THE SOURCE OF THE APOSTLE PAUL's HISTORY — DIVISION OF 
 THE WHOLE SUBJECT. 
 
 Critical inquiry into the primitive history of Christianity, its 
 origin and first development, as they lie before us in the series of 
 writings which form our New Testament Canon, is one of the 
 great wants of our time; the interests and tendencies of this 
 age earnestly demand a solution of this great problem. It may 
 be justly said of the present age that its prevailing tendency 
 is critical, and that its task is not so much to shape a world still 
 growing, as to grasp one already grown and present, and to under- 
 stand by what steps and processes it has come to be what it is. 
 The principal efforts of the age in the higher walks of science are 
 critical and historical in their nature ; everything that seeks to 
 assert a position in the world is asked for its warrant in history ; 
 everything found existing is examined down to the very foundation ; 
 it is sought to go back to the beginning, to the first elements in 
 which the germs of the whole process lay, in order to arrive at a 
 clear insight into the whole from the discovered relations of the in- 
 dividual parts. Thought has now, after the laborious toil of many 
 centuries, emancipated itself and cast away its crutches, and it 
 naturally turns its gaze back into the Past. The spirit, at rest 
 in itself in the assurance of its own self-consciousness, stands for 
 the first time on a vantage-ground, from which it can look back 
 
 VOL. I. A 
 
 o 
 
2 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. 
 
 upon the paths along which it has passed, as circumstances shaped 
 its course ; it retraces those paths not as at first, when it yielded 
 unconsciously to surrounding influences, but recognising the inner 
 necessity in obedience to which it has grown up to its present 
 form. If in so many walks of human knowledge this critical 
 labour is the necessary process through which the consciousness of 
 the Present finds out its own relation to the Past, where can it be 
 of greater importance than where the Present is linked with the 
 Past by the strictest and closest ties, and where this union has its 
 roots in the deepest interests of our spiritual being ? Christianity 
 is on the one hand the great spiritual power which determines all 
 the belief and thought of the present age, the absolute principle 
 on which the self-consciousness of the spirit is supported and 
 maintained, so that, unless it were essentially Christian, it would 
 have no stability or firmness in itseK at alL On the other hand, 
 the essential nature of Christianity is a purely historical question, 
 whose solution lies only in that Past in which Christianity itself 
 had its origin ; it is a problem which can only be solved by that 
 critical attitude of thought which the consciousness of the present 
 age assumes towards the Past. As soon as the separate elements 
 of the problem which had been long preparing, independently of 
 each other, were gathered together into one view and expressed 
 systematically, the importance of the subject could not fail to 
 appear : and this- was done by Strauss in his critical Life of Jesus. 
 The strength of this criticism consisted in little more than this, 
 that it drew necessary deductions from premisses which had long 
 been in existence ; yet it took the public by surprise with the 
 negative character of its results, and produced a painful impression 
 which sought relief in crude and hasty refutations. How far these 
 were successful, and in what way the pubUc mind has been affected 
 by this great critical agitation, we need not here inquire ; but it is 
 clear that, in spite of all possible results, the criticism was amply 
 warranted on scientific grounds. It must be recognised as a service 
 which the education of the age distinctly called for, and the result 
 of what is said in so many quarters against the work of Strauss is 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 simply to demonstrate the necessity of going still deeper and more 
 thoroughly into the critical process which he began. 
 
 The criticism of the gospel history, inasmuch as it immediately 
 concerns the life of the Founder of Christianity, and brings us in 
 contact with so many other momentous questions, will long remain 
 the most important object of the critical labours of our time. The 
 inquiry which -ranks next to it in point of interest is concerned 
 with the question how Christianity, which was at one time so 
 closely interwoven with Judaism, broke loose from it and entered 
 on its sphere of world-wide historical importance. The great 
 historical interest of the Life of Jesus is that we see there the con- 
 sciousness of the idea of Christianity and of its principle, which he 
 first expressed and exemplified by the entire devotion of his whole 
 being ; this is the great result of the Evangelical history. But when 
 we proceed from the Evangelical history to that of the time of the 
 Apostles, it is the practical realisation of that idea which becomes 
 the object of historical research. And this practical realisation of 
 the idea of Christianity first became a question when, in conse- 
 quence of the death and resurrection of Jesus, that idea passed into 
 the actual consciousness of men, and became part of them and a 
 living power in them, and when it found in the bounds of the 
 national Judaism the chief obstacle to its reaching the position in the 
 world which was its due, as we can now perceive. How these bounds 
 were broken through, how Christianity, instead of remaining a mere 
 form of Judaism, and being ultimately absorbed in it, asserted itself 
 as a separate, independent principle, broke loose from it and took its 
 stand as a new form of religious thought and life, essentially differ- 
 ing froin Judaism, and freed from all its national exclusiveness, is 
 the point of next greatest importance in the primitive history of 
 one Christianity. Here also, as in the Gospel history, the historico- 
 critical inquiry finds itself engaged with the person and character of 
 one man. That Christianity, in the universal historical importance 
 which it achieved, was the work of the Apostle Paul is undeniably 
 a matter of historical fact ; but in what manner he brought this 
 about, how we are to conceive of his relations with the elder 
 
4 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. 
 
 Apostles, whether it was in harmony with them or in contradiction 
 and opposition to them, that he carried out these principles and 
 opinions which he was the first to ennunciate, this still requires 
 a more thorough and searching inquiry. As in the Gospel history, 
 historical criticism has here two accounts before it, which differ 
 from each other and must be weighed and compared, in order to 
 get from them what purely historical matter they may contain. 
 These are the accounts given in the Acts of the Apostles and the 
 historical data to be found in the Apostle's own Epistles. It would 
 appear natural to suppose that in all the cases where the accounts 
 in the Acts do not altogether agree with the statements of the 
 Apostle, the latter must have such a decided claim to be considered 
 authentic tmth that the contradictions in the Acts would scarcely 
 be worth attention, but this rule, which the very nature of the case 
 might seem to have required, has not up to this time been so 
 much followed as it ought. Proceeding on the assumption of the 
 thorough identity of the statements in the Acts of the Apostles and 
 the personal declarations of the Apostle in his Epistles, writers 
 have held that the existing discrepancies, even when they can- 
 not be denied, are too slight and unimportant to need serious 
 consideration, and in some cases the statements of the Acts 
 have been believed, though contrary to the clear assertions of 
 the Apostle. Thus not only is historical truth shorn of its own 
 clear light, but we fall far short of that justice and impartiality 
 which are due to the Apostle in judging of his life and labours. 
 In order to show that his relations to the other Apostles were not 
 disturbed by any serious differences, scholars have not hesitated to 
 ascribe to him in many cases a course of action which, if it really 
 was such as is stated, throws a very equivocal light on his character. 
 A discussion of this part of the primitive history of Christianity, 
 undertaken on the foundation of strict historical criticism, will 
 therefore be at the same time an apology for the Apostle. Neander's 
 History of the Apostolic Age is by no means free from this one- 
 sided manner of treatment ; it makes a point of bringing the whole 
 historical material into apparent harmony, and in this°way it has 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 done much to distort and obscure the view of the chief events of 
 this period of the development of Christianity. 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles first presents itself as the chief source 
 of the history of the apostolic life and labours of the Apostle Paul. 
 But the historian cannot take his stand on this work without first 
 making himself acquainted with the relation in which it stands 
 to its historical materials. Between the Acts of the Apostles 
 and the Pauline Epistles, as far as the historical contents of the 
 latter can be compared with the former, there will be found in 
 general the same relation as that between the Gospel of John and 
 the Synoptical Gospels. The comparison of these two sources 
 leads us to the conclusion that, considering the great difference be- 
 tween the two statements, historical truth must be entirely on one 
 side or entirely on the other. To which it does belong can only be 
 decided by applying the undisputed historical canon that the 
 statement which has the greatest claim to historical truth is that 
 which apppears most unprejudiced and nowhere betrays a desire 
 to subordinate its historical material to any special subjective aim. 
 For the history of the Apostolic Age the Pauline Epistles must in any 
 case take precedence of aU the other New Testament writings as an 
 authentic source. On this account alone, if this were all, the Acts 
 must take a secondary place ; but there is also the further considera- 
 tion that the same rule which defines the relation of the Synoptical 
 Gospels to the Gospel of John finds its application in the case of 
 the Acts of the Apostles. The opinion which I have here to ex- 
 press on the Acts of the Apostles, in order to indicate the stand- 
 point of the following inquiry, is that the facts with which it deals 
 do not appear to be narrated simply and directly, but to be modified 
 by certain subjective aims which the writer had in view. And here 
 I am very glad to be able to refer to a critical investigation which 
 I have no scruple in following, its results being in fact what I had 
 myself arrived at some time ago in a different way.-' Schnecken- 
 
 1 Solineckenburger " Ueber den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte,'' Berne, 1841. 
 See my review of this Essay in the Jahrbucher f iir wissensohaftliohe Kritik, March, 
 1841. No. 46. 
 
6 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. 
 
 burger designated the aim of the Acts of the Apostles as apologetic. 
 According to the results of his inquiry, we have to consider this 
 work as a defence of the Apostle Paul in his apostolic dignity and 
 his personal and apostolic conduct, especially in the matter of the 
 Gentiles, as against the attacks and accusations of the Judaizing 
 party. The idea that runs through the whole is that of a parallel be- 
 tween the two Apostles Peter and Paul, and pervades each ofthe two 
 great sections into which the work is divided^ (chapters i. to xiL, 
 and xiii. to the end). The unity of the work consists in this idea ; 
 its chief tendency is to represent the difference between Peter aiid 
 Paul as unessential and trifling. To this end Paul is made in the 
 second part to appear as much as possible like Peter, and Peter in the 
 first part as much as possible like Paul. Thus it is sought to bring 
 the two as near to each other as possible, so that the one may be, as 
 it were, answerable for the other ; and the author being undoubtedly 
 a Paulinist, this has been done in the interests of PauL Hence, as 
 Schneckenburger points out, the second part omits no possible proof 
 of Paul's righteousness according to the law (such as zealous keep- 
 ing of feasts, frequent journeys to the Temple, private asceticism, 
 and- circumcision) ; and, on the other hand, there is no trace of that 
 side of Pauline religion which was a protest against legalism. The 
 same Judaizing tendency which meets us in the personal conduct 
 of Paul is also evident in the account of his official labours. 
 Paul pays all due consideration not only to the elder Apostles, 
 who are completely at one with him (chapter xv.), but also to 
 the Jewish people. In one point this is especially insisted 
 on ; we are told again and again, as often as the occasion requires, 
 that wherever he went, he first proclaimed the Gospel to the Jews, 
 and that only when they rejected him and his Gospel did he turn 
 to the Gentiles. Schneckenburger, with much acuteness, further 
 endeavours to prove that aU the important omissions in the Pauline 
 history are to be accounted for by this apologetic tendency of the 
 
 1 This idea, and the view of the aims of the Acts of the Apostles dependiog on 
 '^'l first enunciated in my treatise Ueber den Ursprungdes Episcopats, Tiibiugen 
 Zcitschnft fur Theologie, 1838, pt. 3, p. 142. ■. i > e 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 Acts. They refer to persons or events, the mention or description of 
 which would have involved an essentially different picture of Paul 
 from that suggested by the story as it stands. They save the writer, 
 in fact, from mentioning the prejudices and misrepresentations of 
 the Judaizers which we hear of in the Pauline Epistles. The most 
 remarkable instance of this kind is the utter silence of the Acts of 
 the Apostles with regard to the scene related in the Epistle to the 
 Galatians between Peter and Paul at Antioch ; and with this may 
 be connected the omission of the name of Titus in the Acts. The 
 first part of the Acts is constructed in accordance with the same 
 apologetic aim. The Jewish opponents of the Apostle Paul, as we 
 see especially in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, would not 
 allow that the visions which he claimed for himself were any proof 
 of his apostolic mission. In this view the vision ascribed to Peter 
 (chapter x), and its acknowledgment by the Primitive Church, is 
 of importance as an indirect legitimation of the Pauline visions. 
 But this vision has reference to the conversion of the first GentUe, 
 Cornelius. If therefor^ the Judaizers complained that the Apostle 
 Paul devoted himself to the conversion of the Gentiles, whilst the 
 children of the Covenant were still for the most part unconverted, 
 the first part shows that Gentiles had been baptised long before Paul's 
 time, baptised by Peter himself, the head of the Judaizers. Thus 
 the whole question of the admission of the Gentiles had been decided 
 by a divine vision, by the assent of the Primitive Church, and by 
 the most distinct expressions and acts of the Apostles. Paiil there- 
 fore had only to tread in the footsteps of the older Apostles. In 
 particular, a comparison of the passages (xv. 7, 14) shows an un- 
 mistakable design to claim for Peter the earliest labour among the 
 Gentiles, and through this precedent to impress on the activity of 
 Paul, so blamed by some, the seal of legitimacy given by the whole 
 Primitive Church. Everything shows how desirous the author 
 of the Acts of the Apostles is to prove that Peter began the con- 
 version of the Gentiles. He did this by divine command after the 
 indifference of the Jews in general had been proved by experience. 
 , ^neckenburger rightly finds another great proof of this 
 
8 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. 
 
 apologetic tendency of the Acts of the Apostles in the fact that 
 whilst the second part makes Paul believe and speak as much as 
 possible in conformity with the demands of the Judaizing party, 
 the same principles of equal participation by Jews and Gentiles in 
 the Messianic salvation which Paul develops at length in the 
 Epistle to the Eomans are laid down and carried out in practice 
 by the Judaeo- Christian Apostles in the first part. The univer- 
 salism of Christianity and the propriety of preaching to the 
 Gentiles were so distinctly recognised by Peter that no doubt can 
 be entertained that the narrator intended the words of Jesus 
 (i. 8) to convey an intimation of this doctrine. 
 
 Schneckenburger has incontestably proved that the Acts of the 
 Apostles is to be understood from this apologetic point of view. 
 It might indeed be asked whether it was written exclusively in 
 this apologetic interest, whether it does not also contain passages 
 which cannot be so easily reconciled with such a purpose, and in 
 which the aim seems to be the general one of furnishing a historical 
 narrative. But the great aim of the work is perfectly clear, and 
 we need not give it up even though there should be some passages 
 of such a kind. The second part, which is occupied exclusively 
 with the Apostle Paul, offers no difficulty in this respect, for 
 although the narrative of the Apostle's travels might seem to 
 contain more personal and special details than the apologetic aim 
 required, still it is clear that this very narrative is coloured 
 throughout in accordance with that aim. In the first part 
 indeed the purely historical interest would seem to predominate 
 over the apologetic one, if we did not take into consideration 
 that the author had first of all to secure his historical basis 
 for the parallel which he has in view, and also that his apologetic 
 aim was forwarded, indirectly at least, to a considerable extent, by 
 the care and accuracy which he employs in his account of the 
 circumstances and arrangements of the first Christian Church. 
 His description of the early church was the part of his work which 
 would appeal most to the Judaists, and by dweUing on it at some 
 length he secured a good introduction for his main theme, the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 apology of the Apostle Paul, which thus appeared in the form of a 
 simple historical narrative. In reality, however, we ought not to set 
 the apologetic in such direct opposition to the historical interest ; 
 they are not inconsistent with each other: the first may be 
 established in such a way as to leave ample room for the second : 
 indeed the apologetic aim cannot be carried out without a proper 
 historical foundation on which to proceed. Another and much 
 more important question here suggests itself, namely, how the 
 supposition of the apologetic aim of the Acts of the Apostles which 
 we have indicated affects the historical trustworthiness of the work 
 and the authorship of Luke ? Sehneckenburger takes great pains 
 to show that the book need not suffer in these particulars, though 
 his results be true. He is anxious to refute tlie opinions of those 
 who differ from him in casting suspicion on the historical trust- 
 worthiness of the Acts, and pronounces repeatedly and decidedly 
 in favour of the traditional vview that Luke was the author. But 
 it is not possible for him to carry out his view of the aim of the 
 Acts without sometimes granting more than seems to be compatible 
 with the supposition of its being the work of an author standing 
 in so close a connection with the Apostle. In .this point of view, 
 how suspicious are such admissions as the following : " Luke's plan 
 evidently did not suggest to him a complete historical picture 
 of Paul, but as brilliant a one as possible. He may not have 
 incorporated in his work any unhistorical feature, yet the picture 
 is obviously incomplete, wanting, as it does, the chief features of 
 the Pauline character which meet us in his own writings" (p. 58). 
 " The picture it presents .of Paul and his labours is a partial one, 
 not always nor in ev«ry detail in conformity with the description 
 he gives of himself in the Epistles, and is one that could not have 
 been drawn by a Paulinist writing without any apologetic aim " 
 (p. 92). "There may be really -some dif&culty in reconciling the 
 later historical fact of the Judaizing of Peter with the Paulinist 
 teachings and labours which are .attributed to Peter in the first 
 part ; and on the other hand Paul seems in the second part to have 
 accommodated himself more to Jewish wishes and prejudices than 
 
10 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. 
 
 ■we could have expected ; to say the least, the characteristic Pauline 
 decisiveness nowhere appears either in teaching or action (p. 210). 
 That in speaking of the Apostle's journey to Jerusalem the author 
 has not only forborne to mention the collection, for the sake of which 
 we know that it was undertaken, but even given a different reason 
 for the journey in order to fill up the gap thus made (p. 113) ; that 
 the objective succession of events is internally improbable (p. 145); 
 that he has permitted himself to use an unhistorical exaggeration 
 (p. 182), etc. etc. ; — all this Schneckenburger cannot deny, however 
 lightly he passes over such points, and careful though he is through- 
 out to prevent any suspicion of historical fiction from attaching 
 to the author of the Acts of the Apostles. In spite of all he thinb 
 the historical credibility of the work stands unshaken ; but after 
 admissions like these this is no longer possible. 
 
 This silence of itself, and the distortion of facts which it in- 
 volves, is enough to show that the writer was not too truthful oi 
 too conscientious even to deny the truth of history when he found 
 it his interest to do so. If we go through the whole series of par- 
 ticulars in which Schneckenburger traces the parallel which the 
 writer sought to draw between the two Apostles, and then care- 
 fully consider how analogous the one is to the other, who can 
 believe that the author took all this only from the history lying 
 before him, and did nothing but select what suited him ? This 
 remarkable fact is just what leads us to the assumption of a 
 special aim, in the light of which the work is to be read. But 
 supposing Schneckenburger's view of the author's trustworthiness 
 to be the true one, what the better are we? The phenomenon 
 before us remains unexplained : if the facts occurred as they are 
 here narrated, then our writer need have been nothing more than 
 a mere chronicler, and it becomes extremely doubtful if he did 
 follow the apologetic aim which is imputed to him, a thing which 
 he himself nowhere mentions. The more clearly we trace an 
 apologetic aim in his narrative, the more questionable must it 
 appear whether what he gives us is a purely historical narrative; 
 and it cannot be denied that possibly, if not probably, he has in 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 many cases altered the true history, not only negatively, by ignor- 
 ing actions and circumstances which bear essentially on his subject- 
 matter, but also positively. 
 
 The most weighty reason for this opinion is, that the Paul of the 
 Acts is manifestly quite a different person from the Paul of the 
 Epistles. "Evidently," says Schneckenburger himself (p. 150), 
 " we do not here get a full and entire account of Paul's relation to 
 the law, but a one-sided one, and there is really nothing laid 
 before us to explain how the other side of that relation is to be 
 reconciled with this one. When we consider how this view of 
 Paul's relation to the law is here embodied in a historical narrative, 
 and how, when the writer comes to discuss the charge brought 
 against Paul of unfaithfulness to the law, he simply, and without 
 any explanation, makes him perform an act of legal conformity in 
 order to prove that charge a slander (Acts xxi. 20 sg.) (Paul him- 
 self makes good his position (Kom. iii. 31), voimov ov KaTapyovfiev 
 Sia T77? Triarecoi}, aXXa vofiov la-Toifiev, in a different way, by 
 force of the keenest dialectic), the conjecture is surely allowable 
 that a special purpose is to be served in presenting Paul to the 
 readers of the Acts in this particular light." The two views which 
 are to be taken together to make one Paul are, in fact, so diver- 
 gent and heterogeneous that the connection that is necessary to 
 harmonise them is anything but self-evident. If the writer of the 
 Acts be, after all, a faithful reporter of history, then the means for 
 harmonising the two representations must be sought for in the 
 Apostle himself; that is to say, the historical character of the 
 author can only be maintained at the cost of the moral character 
 of the Apostle. When the whole bearing of the case is considered, 
 as Schneckenburger's investigation has demonstrated it, it is im- 
 possible for us to remain within the limits which he sets to him- 
 self, ' and which appear to us to be completely arbitrary ; the 
 results of his inquiries draw us on from the mere supposition of an 
 apologetic aim to a much further point, where the question as to 
 the aim of the Acts of the Apostles and its author must be put in 
 a different form. If we start from the idea of an unquestionable 
 
12 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. 
 
 apologetic interest, then the question follows unavoidably— 
 What can have decided the author to sacrifice historical truth to 
 this bias ? That this can only have been done on very weighty 
 grounds is certainly a natural supposition ; but further it is natural 
 to suppose that these grounds are not personal to the Apostle, nor 
 drawn from the circumstances by which he himself was sur- 
 rounded. Surely the best apology of all, if the Apostle needed an 
 apology, would have been found in an open statement of his 
 apostolic life and labours, and of the manner and principles of his 
 actions, as these had been dictated by his apostolic calling. The 
 reasons for the mode of treatment really pursued can only be 
 sought for in circimistances in which the general good of the Church 
 called for such concession on the part of the disciple of Paul 
 These circumstances took place at a time when, in consequence of 
 all those efforts of his Judaeo-Christian opponents, of which his 
 own Epistles show us the by no means trivial beginnings, Paulinism 
 was so far overcome that it could only maintain itseK in the 
 way of concession, by modifying the hardness and directness of its 
 opposition to the law and Judaism ; when it was reduced to come to 
 an understanding with the powerful Jewish- Christian party by which 
 it was opposed, so as to harmonise conflicting views and interests, 
 and form a unity on a new basis. Little though we can foUow the 
 course of these circumstances, we find it undeniable that such 
 relations did exist, that they extended far into the second century, 
 and that they were powerful enough during that period, when the 
 Church was taking form and preparing to appear out of the con- 
 flict of heterogeneous elements, to produce other literary results of 
 a similar tendency. If we carefully consider these relations and 
 the order in which they must have arisen, and remember that not 
 for some time could they acquire such importance, we shall be 
 carried on by them to a point when we can no longer maintain the 
 authorship of Luke for the Acts of the Apostles, at least in the 
 form in which we possess the work. Still, it may not be impossible 
 that sketches, collections, narratives, chronicles, especially those 
 concerning the last journey of the Apostle, from the hand of Luke, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 may have formed the foundation of the Acts. That the name of Luke 
 has been prefixed to it only shows how it was thought probable 
 that, as it treats mainly of the life and labours of the Apostle Paul, 
 and is evidently written in his interest, the work can only have pro- 
 ceeded from one of his intimate friends. Was not this in the mind 
 of the author, when, in the passages marked by the use of " We," 
 he presents himself as an eye-witness and fellow-traveUer ? Who 
 is it that speaks of himself in this way ? He calls himself by 
 no name — the name of Luke nowhere occurs in the Acts of the 
 Apostles; but as Luke is represented in Colossians iv. 14 as 
 standing in close relations with Paul, may not the author have 
 meant by the use of '' we " to put himself in the place of Luke, and 
 to identify himself with him ? Perhaps there was in existence an 
 account of the journey from the hand of Luke which suggested this. 
 In such passages the author is very willing to be considered as one 
 person with Luke ; but he did not venture to declare himself in the 
 character of Luke as the writer of the Acts of the Apostles, for 
 he was well aware of the difference in dates, and could not so 
 completely escape from his own identity. The apologetic interest 
 of his statement does not altogether destroy its historical character, 
 but only limits and modifies it. Unhistorical as it appears in 
 many points, on which we can bring to bear proofs from the 
 Apostle's own writings, it is, on the other hand, in agreement 
 in many instances with the history of that time as we know it 
 from other sources. The Acts of the Apostles, therefore, although 
 our verdict, with regard to its author, its aim, and the time of its 
 production, differs widely from the ordinary one, remains a highly- 
 important source of the history of the Apostolic Age. It is, 
 however, a source which needs strict historical criticism before it 
 can be held to yield a trustworthy historical picture of the persons 
 and circumstances of which it treats. 
 
 The foregoing remarks may suffice for the present to indicate 
 generally the standpoint from which we have to start in conducting 
 our historical examination of the life and labours of the Apostle 
 Paul. Our verdict on the historical value and character of the Acts 
 
1-t LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. 
 
 of the Apostles depends chiefly on the answer we may give to 
 the question — How does it stand related to the historical con- 
 tents of the Pauline Epistles? and thus requires to be sought 
 for by a careful inquiry into the principal features of the Apostle's 
 personal history. This inquiry into the life and labours of the 
 Apostle, proceeding on the criticism of the Acts of the Apostles, 
 is what has first of all to be imdertaken in our attempt to form 
 an estimate of his life and work. The residts of this inquiry will 
 enable us to assign to the Epistles their proper place in the history, 
 and to judge how far the Epistles ascribed to the Apostle are 
 to be held as genuine. From this it wUl appear how only those of 
 the Epistles which are accepted as genuine can be employed in our 
 discussion of the Pauline doctrine. The whole subject thus divides 
 itseK into three closely-connected parts : — 1. The life and work of 
 the Apostle ; 2. The historical position and meaning of his 
 Epistles ; 3. The contents and connection of his doctrine. 
 
FIRST PART. 
 THE LIFE AND WORK OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 THE CHUKCH AT JERUSALEM BEFORE THE APOSTLE's CONVERSION. 
 
 The conversion of the Apostle Paul to Christianity is an event 
 of such peculiar importance in the history of the nascent Church 
 that it can scarcely be understood aright without taking into 
 consideration the condition in which the Church had been during 
 the short time of its existence. But the only thing of which we 
 have any certainty during this earliest period is that which is so 
 closely connected with the name of the Apostle Paul, and to 
 which he himself bears witness (Galatians i. 13, 23 ; 1 Corinthians 
 XV. 9), namely, that he became a Christian and an Apostle from 
 being a persecutor of the Christian Church. Thus even in the 
 earliest times persecutions had fallen on the Church at Jerusalem. 
 Persecutions are spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles, but in such 
 a manner that historical criticism must assert its right of doubt 
 and denial with regard to the statement. 
 
 "When after its weak beginnings the Christian Church had 
 organised itseK in the way we all know and into which we will not 
 here further inquire, first inwardly by the power of the Spirit 
 
16 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 imparted to it as the principle of a new consciousness which 
 animated it henceforward and then outwardly after the rapid 
 increase of its numbers, by the first institutions of its social life, a 
 series of measures was taken against the Apostles by the Jewish 
 rulers, induced by a miracle of healing wrought on a man lame 
 from his birth by the Apostles Peter and John on their way to the 
 Temple. The description of this first persecution of the Apostles 
 is characterised by the same idealising tendency which is apparent 
 ill the whole description of the progress of the primitive Church. 
 In the statement as a whole, as well as in its individual features, 
 a design is evident which makes it impossible to believe that we 
 have the natural historical sequence of events before us. What is 
 intended is, in a word, that the Apostles should appear in their fuU 
 glory. This exaltation of the Apostles is the aim of the narrative 
 from the beginning, and both the main event and the particular 
 circumstances attending it subserve that aim. The greatness and 
 grandeur of the Apostles, whose glorification is the object in view, 
 are put in a stiU clearer light, and are brought all the more 
 prominently forward by the humiliating position in which theii 
 adversaries are exhibited ; all that serves to glorify the Apostles 
 serves also to confound and humble their adversaries, who in fact 
 draw down disgrace upon themselves with all the means at 
 their command and in the most public manner possible. The 
 whole proceedings are of a formal and public nature, so as to attract 
 attention. As soon as the Apostles were seized in consequence of 
 the miracle and of the discourse delivered after its performance, 
 preparation was made to treat the affair as one of the utmost gravity, 
 and with all due formality. Early on the next morning (for 
 there was no time left for such a meeting on the evening of the 
 day before, chapter iv. 3) all the members of the Sanhedrim, the 
 Elders and Scribes, Annas and Caiaphas the High Priests, who are 
 known to us from the history of the condemnation of Jesus, and 
 
 1 Compare, with respect to the occurrences at Ponto.,^.* x i- . ., 
 
 Theol. Stndier, and Kritiken, 1838, p 618 Critica r ' ' 7 " 
 
 ^r, ti,,. -k ' ■» 1. - • *i, ,'i^^^ ^' *-'"*'°*l'^eview of recent researches 
 
 on the yXfflo-o-ais KaXnv in the early Christian Church. 
 
Chap. I.] THE CHUBOE AT JERUSALEM. 17 
 
 all those who belonged to their party, came together. N"o one 
 whose name was of any importance must be wanting. Even 
 those members of the Sanhedrim who, from various circum- 
 stances, were not present in Jerusalem, were obliged to return in 
 aU haste to the capital^ in order to take part in the proceedings. 
 And what resulted from all this ? Nothing more than that the 
 whole assembled Sanhedrim allowed itself to be told by the two 
 Apostles under examination that the cause of this judicial inquiry 
 against them was a good deed wrought on a suffering man, and that 
 the worker of this miracle was Jesus Christ of Nazareth, by them 
 crucified and slain, and to whose saving name this miracle of 
 healing gave irrefragable evidence. In order to heighten stiU further 
 the effect which this must have produced on the Sanhedrim, we 
 are carefully shown how much that court had been mistaken in 
 its estimate of the Apostles. It had taken them for uneducated 
 persons of low rank, for the same men, in fact, who at the con- 
 demnation of Jesus had given so many proofs of their weakness 
 and timidity, but now it could not but wonder at them for the 
 fearlessness and courage with which they behaved, iv. 13. This 
 change in the Apostles is mentioned as now perceived for the first 
 time by the members of the Sanhedrim and to their great astonish- 
 ment,^ although those occurrences in the Temple, which had so 
 roused their attention, must already have shown them with what 
 kind of men they had to deal This incomprehensible want of 
 perception on the part of the Sanhedrim adds lustre to the appear- 
 ance of the Apostles who have been brought before them. Even 
 this is not enough : the greatest difficulty which the Sanhedrim 
 had to contend with, and which indeed made them appear com- 
 pletely routed and disarmed, was the presence of the lame man who 
 had been healed, which afforded incontestable evidence of the 
 Apostles' assertions. If it is asked how the lame man who had 
 
 1 So must the words, iv. 6, be taken : crvvax6rjvm — els 'Upova-aXriiJ., where ctr 
 is not equivalent to iv ; it would he unmeaning to remark that the dwellers in 
 Jerusalem had assembled in Jerusalem. 
 
 ^ The words, iv. 13, iireylvaia-Kov re avroiis on <rvv ra 'Itja-ov rjcrav, express a 
 recollection which only then, during the progress of the trial, dawned upon them. 
 
 VOL. I. ^ 
 
18 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 been healed came to be present at this trial, the narrative says 
 only, iv. 14: tov 8e avOpaiwov ^iwovTe^ avv avfoh ecrrcoTa tov 
 TeOepaTrevfjievov, ovSev el-)(ov avrenreiv, and the commentators have 
 nothing to say in explanation of this certainly remarkable circum- 
 stance. Had he, as at first would appear, been summoned by the 
 Sanhedrim itself, or had he, since the author remarks, iiL 11, that 
 he never left the Apostles' side from the time -when the cure was 
 wrought on him, followed them to prison and from prison to 
 the judgment hall ? In either case, if the members of the San- 
 hedrim lost self-command at the presence of this man (which they 
 must certainly have themselves permitted, if not ordered) to such 
 an extent that they were completely silenced with regard to 
 the chief point of the prosecution, though a point which they could 
 hardly fail to have foreseen and provided for, then they showed 
 a want of forethought unexampled in such a court. In fact the 
 members of the Sanhedrim did not know what they wanted ; the 
 points which they ought to have well considered and settled before- 
 hand, they first thought of only after they had assembled— what 
 had been plainly seen by all Jerusalem then first flashed on their 
 blinded eyes. If this miracle was such a public one (iv. 16), they 
 could not have been in ignorance of it — they must surely have come 
 to an understanding on the subject with each other beforehand, 
 and determined in what manner they were to meet the assertion 
 of the Apostles. That the matter had no further result before such 
 blind and weak-minded judges as these members of the Sanhedrim 
 are made to appear throughout the whole narrative, is the only 
 thing about which no wonder can be felt. And yet we do wonder 
 how the writer could have thought that he had accounted for the 
 faUure of the whole process, which had no result but to throw 
 discredit on the Sanhedrim, by the remark that nothing could be 
 done for fear of the people, iv. 21. If the people had been so much 
 to be feared, the rulers would never have dared to seize the 
 Apostles (iv. 3) in the midst of their discourse to the crowd which 
 had assembled round them, and was filled with wonder at the 
 miracle, nor to carry them off to prison. All this could only be 
 
Chap. L] tSE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM. 19 
 
 disregarded by taking a standpoint, from which the Apostles were 
 thought to be the more glorified the more the ill deeds of their 
 enemies turned to their humiliation and confusion. 
 
 This is, however, only the first part of this story, which is 
 carried forward almost dramatically, not exactly in direct develop- 
 ment, but in the same strain. A second part follows, which is 
 a mere repetition of the first with this important difference, that 
 in it everything is on a larger scale. This appears in the fact that 
 not merely one, but a great many miracles had now been worked, 
 not only on one suffering man, but on sick and suffering people of 
 all kinds ; and the attention of their enemies was again directed 
 to the Apostles, because people flocked to them, not only from 
 Jerusalem, but also from the neighbouring towns. As in the 
 first instance it was the two Apostles Peter and John who were 
 seized and thrown into prison, and then brought before the 
 Sanhedrim, now it is the whole number of the Apostles who are so 
 treated.-' The first time their enemies kept their hold of the 
 two Apostles, at least so far as to detain them in prison through 
 the night and to be able to produce them the next morning 
 before the Sanhedrim. On this occasion, however, the Apostles 
 who were in prison were freed in the night by an angel of the 
 Lord, who led them out of the prison and commanded them to 
 preach before the people in the Temple ; and when the Sanhedrim 
 assembled next morning in full and solemn conclave, and caused 
 the Apostles to be summoned before them by their of&cers, they 
 were astounded by the news that the gates of the prison had been 
 found most carefully closed and the guard standing before the door, 
 but that on opening the prison no one was found in it. In the diffi- 
 culty in which the Sanhedrim was now involved, they accidentally 
 received tidings that the men who had been put in prison were in 
 the Temple preaching to the people. The Apostles allowed them- 
 selves to be entreated with gentle words to present themselves 
 
 1 We now hear simply of ot anocrToKoi, v. 18, 29, 40 ; the signs and wonders 
 which gave cause to the prosecution bta tS>v x^i-P^v ™'' a.iT0(TT6\av ey€«/£To, 
 V. 12 ; and immediately after this wnavres, sc. awotrroXoi, are spoken of. 
 
20 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 again before the Sanhedrim. Force would not have availed, as 
 the people, though it had suffered the arrest of the Apostles on the 
 previous day, was now in such a mood that it would have stoned 
 the Temple-keeper and his servants. But when the Apostles 
 repeated their former declaration that they ought to obey God 
 rather than man, and that God the Father had raised the crucified 
 Jesus from the dead, the same scene was repeated. Great as the 
 exasperation was, and though it seemed that the most serious 
 consequences could scarcely be avoided, yet the result actually 
 attained formed on this occasion also the most striking contrast 
 to the plajis and arrangements which the Apostles' enemies had 
 made ; and the slight punishment with which, in addition to an 
 utterly futile prohibition, the Apostles were dismissed, served but 
 to increase the satisfaction which they felt : on virkp tov ovofmrm 
 avTov KaTTj^icoOrjaav, aTi.fiaadTjvai, v. 41. 
 
 In all this, who can see anything else than an enhanced and 
 exaggerated repetition of the narrative already related, devised 
 with the one idea of setting forth the Apostles in their full 
 greatness and dignity, in the glorified light of the higher power 
 under whose protection and guidance they stood ? If we can see 
 no natural connection and progress of events in the circumstances 
 as they were related in the first instance, how great does the 
 improbability become when the same occurrences are represented 
 as happening for the second time as if outbidding themselves ? The 
 simple enumeration of the separate points through which the story 
 moves cannot possibly make any other impression on an unpre- 
 judiced mind. It is self-evident that if we are to pronounce a 
 well-digested judgment on the probability or improbability of 
 the whole, all the points of the narrative ought to be taken 
 together and considered in their relation to each other. The affair, 
 however, appears in a totally dift'erent light in the statement given 
 by Neander, as follows : " Meanwhile the great work which the 
 Apostles had performed before the eyes of the people (the heahng 
 of the lame man), the power of the word of Peter, and the fruitless 
 trial of force, resulted in increasing the number of the disciples to 
 
Chap. I.] TBE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM. 21 
 
 two thousand.'^ As the Apostles, without troubling themselves 
 about the command of the Sanhedrim, laboured (as they declared 
 openly they would do) more and more with word and deed to 
 spread the Gospel, it could not be otherwise than that they should 
 again be brought before the Sanhedrim as contumacious. When 
 the president of the Sanhedrim reproved them for their dis- 
 obedience, Peter renewed his former protest (v. 29). The words 
 of Peter had already excited the rage of the Sadducees and fanatics, 
 and the voices of many were raised for the death of the Apostles ; 
 but among the crowd of angry men one voice of moderating wisdom 
 made itself heard. The word of Gamaliel prevailed ; no heavier 
 punishment than scourging was laid upon the Apostles for their 
 disobedience, and they were dismissed after the former prohibition 
 had been repeated."^ 
 
 Eepresented in this light, the whole affair assumes a different 
 aspect ; but is this representation a correct one ? By what right 
 does it ignore the miraculous release of the Apostles from prison, 
 which is so large a feature in this part of the narrative, and which, 
 if it be considered to be a miracle, must surely for that reason count 
 for something more than a mere chance detail ? If the silence on 
 this point is due to a feeling that the narrative would be simpler, 
 more natural, and more probable without it, it would also seem to 
 give room for a doubt which would change the whole aspect of this 
 section of the Acts, and which on this account must not be ad- 
 mitted in silence, but considered with aU due attention. If we 
 have a right to doubt this part of the narrative, then we may also 
 doubt another portion, and thus inevitably arises the question, 
 what in the whole section is historical and what unhistorical ? 
 But to omit everything which does not suit the theory entertained, 
 and to use the rest of the materials with the modifications which 
 such omissions render necessary — to interpolate now this supposi- 
 
 1 The conversion of the two thousand is, however, reported before the trial of 
 force — iv. 4. 
 
 2 Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der ChristL Kirche durch die Apostel. 
 Ed. 1841, vol. i. p. 62, Bohn's Transl. i. 46. 
 
22 LfFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 tion and now that, in order to make the whole hang well together 
 and appear probable/ and then to present the results of this omis- 
 sion and addition, as the undoubtedly genuine historical contents 
 of the narrative that has been subjected to this treatment, this is 
 nothing else than the acknowledged rationalistic method, which 
 makes its own arbitrary history. And if this method does not carry 
 out its rationalistic principles consistently, but at one time sets 
 miracle aside, and at another adopts it and treats it as an essential 
 factor of a narrative of events on their objective side, yet it is easy 
 to see where such a method of treatment must lead, and by what 
 necessity we are shut up to the alternatives, either to confine our- 
 selves to a simple, hteraUy exact narrative of the facts, or to allow 
 historical criticism (if we cannot altogether ignore its existence) fuU 
 scope to exercise its functions. 
 
 The manner in which the chief event is narrated betrays the 
 tendency of the whole passage ; but that tendency is no less 
 apparent in the minor details of the story, in some of them indeed 
 even more clearly and unmistakably. The Apostles are through- 
 out represented as exalted, superhuman beings, who affect aU 
 around them by their indwelling, supernatural, miraculous power, 
 who, with imposing mien, sway the assembled crowds, and draw 
 to themselves with irresistible power all who listen to their preach- 
 ing. How clearly is this expressed when we are told that great 
 fear fell upon the whole Church, and upon all who heard these 
 
 1 Neander allows liimself to make use of such an aid, page 45, in reference to 
 iv. 1-22, when he conjectures thus: "Perhaps also the secret (if not absolutely 
 declared) friends whom the cause of Christ possessed from the first among the 
 members of the Sanhedrim used their influence in favour of the accused." Secret 
 friends of the cause of Christ among the members of the Sanhedrim ! How far 
 is this idea removed from the whole spirit of the Acts ! What has led to such a 
 completely arbitrary and improbable hypothesis? Manifestly the fact that 
 the course and the issue of the affair have apjieared unintelligible. But this 
 hypothesis granted, is the problem even then solved ? So little is this the case 
 that another difficulty is raised, which is artfully concealed and as much as pos- 
 sible ignored. There is nothing more blameable than a method of treating 
 history, which mstead of looking freely, openly, and impartiaUy at the facts as 
 they are and sifting them thoroughly, sets its own arbitrary ideas and imagina- 
 tions in the place of historical truth. 
 
Chap. I.] THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM. 23 
 
 things, in consequence of the miracles which were performed, v. 11. 
 How suggestively is the impression that their greatness made brought 
 before us when we hear that when they, i.e. the Apostles, were all 
 together in the Porch of Solomon, where a large crowd usually 
 gathered, they formed an isolated group, which no man dared to 
 approach. The high estimation in which they were held is suggested 
 by the fact that the people kept at a certain distance from them, 
 holding them to be superior, superhuman, perhaps magical beings, 
 whom no man ought to approach too nearly.^ The idealistic view 
 of the Apostles, which underlies the whole account, is here clearly 
 and decidedly expressed. 
 
 The bright light which is shed over the assembled Apostles 
 centres itself in its richest glory in the person of the Apostle 
 Peter, who stands at the head of the twelve. In the first division 
 of the section (chap, iii.-v.) the Apostle John shares this pre- 
 eminence with the Apostle Peter — but in the rest of the narrative 
 it is only the Apostle Peter who is raised above his fellow-apostles 
 in the same proportion in which they are raised above other men. 
 Whilst the Apostles collectively perform signs and wonders in 
 great numbers, the Apostle Peter's very shadow brings about 
 these miraculous results, and while at the first trial John is 
 mentioned as being with Peter, iv. 1 9, at the second Peter alone 
 is spoken of, and represented as being the spokesman of the rest. 
 But the most brilliant passage of the apostolic activity of Peter is 
 the miracle which was worked on Ananias and Sapphira. It may 
 be assumed that there was good reason for these two names being 
 interwoven with the history of the early Church. They may have 
 exhibited a course of thought and action directly opposed to the 
 example of self-sacrifice and unselfishness given by Barnabas, who 
 
 1 aitavTes, V. 12, is commonly taken as referring not merely to the Apostle 
 tut to Christians generally. Zeller also, "Acts of the Apostles," T. T. F. L., 
 p. 215, prefers this rendering, as the Church was constantly assembled, ii. 42, 
 44, 46. But V. 12 has to do with the ixeya\iv€i.v of the Apostles, on account of 
 the influence which proceeded from them, and as through this a (po^os seized the 
 iraa-a eKKKrja-ia, the Christians also felt this awe and shrank from standing side by 
 side with such superior beings {KoWacrdai,). 
 
24 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I, 
 
 is placed in direct contrast with them ; this may have caused their 
 names to be so hated and despised that in their death, in whatever 
 way it came about, men saw an evident act of divine retribution ; 
 but everything beyond this merely serves to enforce the writer's 
 view of the Trvev/j.a a/yiov as the divine principle operating in the 
 Apostles, and can only be explained in connection with that view. 
 As the irvevfjLa ayiov, animating all Christians, is a divine principle, 
 imparting to them an elevated and peculiar character, so it is 
 bestowed in a special manner on the Apostles. Their human 
 individuality stands in so secondary a place to this animating 
 divine principle that they seem to be only the instruments and 
 organs of it, and all that they do bears in itself the immediate 
 stamp of divinity. In this sense must be taken the words of Peter, 
 through whom as the first of the Apostles the irvev^a ayiov of 
 course declared itself in all its force and significance when he said 
 to Ananias, v. 4, ovk e'\jrevaco avdpoJTroi';, aXKa ra OeS. But if a 
 striking illustration were to be given of the activity of this prin- ' 
 ciple dwelling in the Apostles and of the divine character imparted 
 to them by it, how could this be better done than by narrating 
 a case in which a doubt is cast on it, thereby putting the Holy 
 Spirit itself to the proof? This was what Ananias and his wife 
 Sapphira were held to have done, inasmuch as they had agreed 
 together on a course of conduct which could succeed only on the 
 supposition that the divine principle animating the Apostles did 
 not bestow on them divine omniscience, which one would naturally 
 have thought the most essential attribute of the irvevfia ayiov. 
 What other result could follow from such a course of conduct than 
 that the divine judgment should go forth upon the two in sudden 
 death ? For they had sinned not against man, but against the 
 organs of the Divine Spirit, against God himself. 
 
 There would be no necessity to speak of the attempts to put 
 a natural interpretation on this event, which have been made by 
 Heinrichs and other interpreters, if this mode of explanation had 
 not received fresh support and authority from Neander. For it is 
 nothing else but an endeavour of this kind which Neander makes, 
 
Chap. L] TSE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM. 25 
 
 ■when lie says, page 28 : " If we reflect what Peter was in the eyes 
 of Ananias : how the hypocritical, superstitious man must have been 
 astonished and confounded at seeing his lie brought to light — how 
 the reproving holy earnestness of a man, speaking to his conscience 
 with such divine assurance must have worked on his terrified spirit 
 and the fear of punishment from a holy God laid hold on him : 
 then we do not find it so difficult to conceive how the words of the 
 Apostle brought about so great an effect. The divine and the 
 natural are here intimately bound up together." 
 
 According to this, we have to look at the death of Ananias as a 
 natural event quite intelligible as such on psychological grounds. 
 But even if such an event as sudden death might not impossibly 
 be the direct psychological consequence of such a violent mental 
 shock, the case before us cannot be considered from this standpoint. 
 The rarer and more uncommon such a death is, the more unlikely 
 is it to have happened two different times in the space of three 
 hours. For the death of Sapphira must be attributed to the same 
 cause, and Neander does not hesitate to give it the same psycho- 
 logical explanation : " When Sapphira entered the assembly three 
 hours later, without suspecting what had happened " (this of course 
 must be supposed on the naturalistic hypothesis, however it conflicts 
 with verse 5),^ " Peter first of all endeavoured, by questioning her, 
 to arouse her conscience. But when, instead of being led to con- 
 sider and repent, she persisted in her dissimulation, Peter accused 
 her of having concerted with her husband to try the Spirit of God, 
 whether or not it could be deceived by their hypocrisy. He then 
 proceeded to threaten her with the divine punishment which had 
 just overtaken her husband. The words of Peter were in this 
 instance aided by the impression of her husband's fate, and striking 
 the conscience of the hypocrite produced the same efiect as on her 
 husband." If such an event (granting that it really occurred once) 
 is in the highest degree uncommon, its immediate recurrence de- 
 prives the story of all probability. We might of course disregard 
 the improbability ; but this is quite beside the mark : since the 
 
 1 At V. 7 we read expressly, iir) elhvla to yfyoyof. — Editor's note. 
 
26 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I, 
 
 narrative of the author admits no interpretation but that a miracle 
 was intended to be wrought, and was wrought. The speech of 
 Peter to Ananias is spoken in so threatening a tone, that the death 
 of Ananias immediately succeeding it can only appear as the exe- 
 cution of the threatened punishment. This is seen even more 
 distinctly in the speech addressed to Sapphira : tSov, ol Tro'Se? 
 Tuv 6a^lrdvT(ov Tov avBpa crov, eVt ry 6vpa, Kai e^otcrovcri ae, V. 9. 
 A death which follows immediately on such a clear declaration 
 cannot be looked on as accidental, but as an intended a,nd miracu- 
 lously-procured event. If it be considered as a merely accidental, 
 natural event which the Apostle did not expressly wish nor call 
 for, a new doubt arises, namely, whether it would not have been 
 the duty of the Apostle, when so shortly before he had seen so 
 unexpected and fatal a result of his words, to endeavour rather to 
 moderate than to enhance the impression which could not fail to be 
 made on Sapphira. Except on the hypothesis of a miracle, the narra- 
 tive must appear almost meaningless. But the natural explanation, 
 as Neander gives it, is not meant to be carried out to its conclusions ; 
 it is intended merely to smooth the way for the reception of the 
 miracle by one who is prejudiced against the supernatural Such 
 an one is to learn that the supernatural of the miracle is in fact 
 natural, and so to be led round to the concession that natural as it 
 is, it is yet supernatural. For not only does Neander speak here of 
 a divine judgment which was necessary in order to preserve the 
 first operations of the Holy Spirit from the admixture of the most 
 dangerous poison, and to secure a proper respect for the apostohe 
 authority, he remarks expressly that the Divine and the Natural 
 appear here to be in the closest connection. How we are to vmder- 
 stand this connection between the Divine and the Natural, 
 Olshausen may inform us in his Commentary ; on v. 1, sq., he 
 reminds us that " the absolute distinction between the natural and 
 supernatural is in this case also mischievous. There is nothing to 
 prevent us from giving a purely natural explanation of the death 
 of Ananias ; but by the adoption of this theory the miraculous 
 character of the event is not set aside. The natural itself becomes 
 
Chap. I.] THB CHURCH AT JERUSALEM. 27 
 
 miraculous through the relation which it bears to its circumstances 
 and surroundings, and such is the case with this death, which, 
 taken in connection with the sentence of the Apostle spoken in the 
 power of the Spirit, and penetrating Ananias like a sword, to 
 convict him of sin, was in reality a miracle ordered by a higher 
 power." But what end does this irresolute way of thinking serve ? 
 The absolute distinction between the natural and supernatural is 
 not mischievous, for the idea of miracle demands such a distinction ; 
 a miracle, if it is not something essentially or absolutely different 
 from the natural, is not a miracle at all. But the illogical blend- 
 ing of two essentially different ideas is mischievous — the neutral- 
 ising of natural and supernatural into an indifferent tertium 
 quid, which on the one hand shall be as much natural as super- 
 natural, but on the other hand neither supernatural nor natural, 
 and thus is nothing whatever. Two views only can be taken 
 of this event. The death of Ananias and Sapphira was either 
 natural — the natural result of terror and .the consequence of an 
 apoplectic fit, and for that very .reason no miracle, and not the 
 result of the will or words of the Apostle — or.it was a miracle, and 
 then not the mere result of fear and apoplexy, for even if fear and 
 apoplexy were the immediate cause of the death, they did not 
 operate independently, or the death would have been no miracle ; 
 but they had this result, owing to the will of the Apostle and the 
 divine miraculous power accompanying his words. It is therefore 
 clear that if so great an importance is attached to the natural 
 causes of Neander and Olshausen.as to allow of a strictly natural 
 construction being put on the death of Ananias and Sapphira, the 
 true nature of the question is altogether lost sight of. The secondary 
 intermediate cause is illogically regarded as the primary cause, and 
 a middle cause neither primary nor secondary is introduced, of 
 which the narrative says nothing, because the narrator is very far 
 from intending that what he relates as miracle should be taken for 
 an accidental natural event. If we are thus shut up to the mira- 
 culous theory of the event, the miracle remains in all its hardness, 
 and the less this hardness is in unison with the rest of the New 
 
28 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I, 
 
 Testament miracles, or vindicates itself on satisfactory grounds, 
 the more justly will this miracle be reckoned as part of the evidence 
 which tendstodiscredit the historical character of the whole pass- 
 age to which it belongs. 
 
 "We will here glance at the miracle which introduces the whole 
 story. In this whole passage the glorification of the Apostles is 
 the aim to which' everything tends ; they are to be contrasted with 
 their enemies as high, super^humauj unapproachable beings. The 
 principal transaction narrated in the passage is unintelligible and 
 disconnected, and obviously serves merely to work out the idea 
 which underlies the whole narrative. These considerations must 
 certainly determine to some extent our judgment on the occurrence 
 which stands at the head of the story, and the fact of its being 
 a miracle cannot make any difference. It is clear on the face of 
 this miracle that it serves only to introduce, to show the occa- 
 sion of, the events which follow. The object of the narrative 
 being to enhance the glory of the Apostles; it was necessary to show 
 the enemies of the cause of Jesus as taking fresh steps which could 
 lead to nothing but their own shame and humiliation. For this 
 end, somethiiig must of course take place to draw their atten- 
 tion to the Apostles, and compel them to take action. The cause 
 of Jesus must win the sympathy of the people, the preaching of the 
 Apostles must cause a very considerable increase in the number of 
 believers. But results like these could not be imputed to the mere 
 preaching of the Apostles ; that preaching needed some new point 
 to start from ; the interest of the people must be aroused by some 
 event of a palpable and striking nature. How could this be better 
 effected than by a miracle worked by the Apostles ? But it was 
 not every miracle that would have served this purpose. It must 
 not be one which would have a merely transitory effect, but one 
 of such a nature as to continue to excite public attention, and 
 evidence itself to the publia eye, by its abiding results after the 
 miraculous act was performed. No miracle could better fulfil these 
 conditions than the healing of the man lame from his birth, who had 
 never walked, before, but who immediately used the power given to 
 
Chap. I.] THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM. 29 
 
 him in such a manner as to be a walking miracle which no one 
 could help ohserving. The narrative itself represents the miracle 
 in this light. As soon as it is performed, the lame man springs up, 
 walks about, accompanies the Apostles to the Temple, walking and 
 leaping and praising God, and publishing what had happened to him, 
 so that all the people saw him, and were filled with wonder and 
 astonishment at the change, iii. 8-10. He even remained an in- 
 separable companion of the two Apostles, in order that, by the side 
 of the workers of the miracle, he m-ight bear witness to the miracle 
 they had worked, iii. 11, and appear, in what way we are not told, 
 with the Apostles at the judicial meeting of the Sanhedrim. Then 
 the narrative points out again and again how notorious the miracle 
 had become throughout Jerusalem, and how it had been the more 
 recognised as a highly extraordinary event, because the lame man 
 was known as a beggar, of mor« than.forty years old, who sat daily 
 at the gate of the Temple, iii. 2, 9, 14, 16, 21, 22. As soon as the 
 dominant idea of the whole is rightly understood, how clearly does 
 the relation appear in which each separate feature stands to the 
 whole — how clearly do we see how the whole grew into the form 
 in which we find it ! And if the historical character of the chief 
 occurrence must be doubted, how little can we hold as historical 
 facts the individual minor circumstances, which merely lead up to 
 and prepare for what is to follow. In every individual trait do we 
 not trace the internal connection by which the writer strove to 
 bind the whole together, in order that the end he had in view might 
 be advanced ? 
 
 This peculiar idealising tendency of the whole passage is not, 
 however, limited to the Apostles; the glorifying ray of the same light 
 shines also on the whole Church of the believers. The glory which 
 falls to the share of the Apostles is indeed the tribute due to the 
 Holy Spirit which dwelt in and animated them ; and it is the same 
 Spirit with which all the believers are filled. In them also there 
 is a divine principle, which raises them above the level of common 
 men, and sheds a more than earthly light around them. In this 
 light they are represented in both the short sections— ii. 42-47, iv. 
 
30 LTFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 32-37— in which the aim of the author is to give a general descrip- 
 tion of the state of the early Church. That which is reported of 
 the Apostles, namely, that they enjoyed the admiration, reverence, 
 and love of the whole population of Jerusalem, is extended to the 
 Church as a distinction which belonged to it as well : iye'vero he 
 ■KcxcrT) ^v^rj (}>d/3o';, ii. 43 ; e'^ovTe<; ^(apiv 7rpo<; o\ov tov Xaop, ii. 47; 
 X<ipi''i ''■6 fJ^eydXr] f)v hii travTaf avTov<;, iv. 33. It is evident how 
 little the persecution of the Christians, which broke out so soon after- 
 wards, confirms this account. Such a conception of the relations of 
 the firstChristian Church to the whole people must be set down to the 
 gradual embellishment of legend, and other features in the narrative 
 confirm this view. What enabled the Church to make such a favour- 
 able impression on the people and to engage their good- will and con' 
 fidence to such a marked degree must have been, more than any of 
 its other features, that spirit of unity and harmony which animated I 
 all the members of the body. This spirit bound them together, and 
 showed itself especially in their social arrangements, in that general I 
 community of goods which they introduced among themselves, and 
 before which all distinctions of private property disappeared. We 
 should expect to find this a genuine historical report of the social 
 relations of the Primitive Church ; but that this is by no means the 
 case is allowed even by those who have the highest opinion of the 
 historical credibility of the Acts of the Apostles. " In the narrative 
 of the Acts itself," remarks Neander, p. 34 (Bohn, p. 25), "there is 
 a great deal which contradicts the idea of such a community of 
 goods. Peter expressly says- to Ananias that it lay with himself 
 whether to keep the piece of ground or to sell it ; and that even 
 after it was sold he was at liberty to do what he chose with the 
 proceeds, v. 4. What we find in the sixth chapter of the Acts is a 
 regulated division of alms to widows, but nothing of the nature of 
 a common purse' for the use of the whole church. We find, xiL 12, 
 that Mary possessed a house of her own at Jerusalem, which, accord- 
 ingly, she had not sold for the benefit of the common purse. These 
 instances show clearly that we are not to imagine an entire sus- ' 
 pension of the rights of property in the case of the early Church," 
 
Chap. I.] THE CHUBCH AT JERUSALEM. 31 
 
 But this, and nothing but this, is what the author explicitly declares. 
 If the contradiction between his description here and the facts he 
 himself relates in other passages compels us " not to take that 
 description literally," as Neander says, then we must acknowledge as 
 a fact that other interests besides historical ones underlie the nar- 
 rative. It is also incontestable that there is a desire manifested to 
 represent this primitive Church in the beautiful light of a fellow- 
 ship from which all that is disturbing and dividing in the social 
 relations of humanity has been banished, and first of all, the dis- 
 tinction between rich and poor. But this state of things did not 
 actually exist, in fact could nob exist, from the very nature of the 
 case ; for how can we imagine that in a Church, which at that time, 
 according to the declaration of the writer, iv. 4, consisted of 5000 
 members, all those who possessed houses and landed property sold 
 them, iv. 34 ; and that not one individual in the whole Church pos- 
 sessed a house of his own ? And if (let this be added to the other 
 considerations) it was an established rule that every member should 
 sell all that he possessed, and put the proceeds as a contribution in 
 money into the common purse, why is it told, as a remarkable 
 fact, iv. 36, that Joses Barnabas sold his land, and brought the price 
 and laid it at the Apostles' feet ? We must again conclude that 
 what the writer represents as a general arrangement of the first 
 Christian community did not take place so generally as is here 
 represented. We may, perhaps, take this as the historical truth, 
 that " a common purse was established, out of which the needs of 
 the greater part of the poorer members of the Church were relieved ; 
 out of which, perhaps, the expenses which the Church body in- 
 curred (such as the preparations of the feasts) were defrayed, and 
 that many sold their property in order to increase their contribu- 
 tions to this joint-purse. Thus there may have been a reproduc- 
 tion of the economical arrangements of that fellowship of men and 
 women who attached themselves to Christ ; the arrangement may 
 have been similar to what generally obtained afterwards in the 
 ordinary collections for the poor." (Neander, p. 36, Bohn, 26.) But 
 this does not bear out the description of the Acts, and if no 
 
32 
 
 LIFE AND PVOUK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 other data were at our disposal, we should not be at liberty to con- 
 sider the element of truth in it to be so great, since a narrative to 
 which historical credibility must be denied as a whole leaves us in 
 total uncertainty as to the amount of truth which may yet lie at 
 its foundation. All that can lead us in this case to suppose a sub- 
 stratum of historical fact is the general truth that unhistorical 
 narratives are not usually altogether invented, but in most cases rise 
 out of something in actual history. But in order to obtain the 
 historical element which may be present in the two passages in 
 question, though neither of them gives us much help to discover it, 
 we must add to the particulars we possess what, according to Epi- 
 phanius (Haer. 30), the Ebionites said of themselves. This was, 
 that the epithet "poor," which they gave themselves, and considered 
 as an honourable distinction, they took on account of their having 
 sold their possessions in the time of the Apostles, and laid the price 
 at their feet. Thereby they took upon themselves poverty and 
 renunciation, and on this account, they said, they were everywhere 
 called " poor." The expression itself, " laid at the Apostles' feet," 
 shows that this account is closely related to the two passages of the 
 Acts ; we cannot believe it to have been adopted from the Acts, a 
 work which could have no authority for the Ebionites, owing to the 
 well-known hatred of this sect to the Apostle Paul. Thus we have 
 here a historical datum which tells us of a similar riOevai ivapa tovi 
 TToSa? Toijv diToaToXav as a characteristic feature of the apostolic 
 time. But we must not suppose the poverty of the Ebionites arose 
 first of all from their having sold all their possessions. The sup- 
 position is much more natural that they were poor from the 
 beginning, that they considered their poverty as something honour- 
 able and distinctive, and that they wished it to be considered as 
 a thing they had voluntarily adopted. This naturally gave rise to 
 the story that they had originally possessed property, but that they 
 had sold it and laid the money realised by such sales at the Apostles' 
 feet. What we may suppose to have been the historical truth in 
 this instance, is not so much the action, as the disposition, the 
 estimate of worldly goods, which the action would reveal ; and as 
 
Chap. I.] THE CHUBCH AT JERUSALEM. 33 
 
 the disposition must prove itself in action, it is here translated into 
 an action which vividly represents it. What the Acts of the Apostles 
 states respecting the social relations and arrangements of the first 
 Christian Church is not to be understood as referring to a real, total, 
 and general community of goods, but only to the general willingness 
 not merely felt, but also displayed in action by men like Barnabas, 
 to sacrifice their riches and possessions for the sake of the cause of 
 Jesus, devoting them to the public objects of the Church, and in 
 this sense laying them at the Apostles' feet. But the general com- 
 munity of goods and actual renunciation of worldly possessions 
 mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles only shows us in a remark- 
 able manner the peculiar nature of mythic tradition. It prefers 
 what is concrete, living, and capable of being represented in strong 
 colours ; mere disposition is too bald and empty ; it must be real- 
 ised in action, if it is to have any life and meaning of its own, and 
 take its place as a subject fit to be handed down in tradition. This 
 may also explain the following discrepancy, that while the Ebion- 
 ites affirmed that they became poor through the riOivat irapa tov<; 
 TToBwi Twv airoa-rokcov, the Acts of the Apostles declares that by 
 the same process aU poverty and need were banished from the 
 Church. This, though it should perhaps be taken relatively, is yet 
 distinctly expressed in the words ovh\ <^ap evBerjt; rt? virfjp'^ev ev 
 avTolf, etc. If the writer kept in his eye the disposition which 
 prompted the renunciation of these worldly goods and possessions, 
 he had to hold fast the idea of poverty ; but when he proceeded to 
 speak of the actual realisation of this disposition for the benefit of 
 the community, he had to show that the wants of the community 
 were actually relieved. 
 
 If it is asked what is the true historical residuum of the whole 
 section, Acts iii.-v., the actual results are very small ; the nature 
 of the stories that are given seems to point to the fact that the 
 early history of the Church was extremely uneventful. The fact 
 that bears the most decided impress of historical reality, namely, 
 the advice given by Gamaliel, seems to indicate that the enemies 
 of Jesus troubled themselves very little about his disciples during 
 VOL. I. ^ 
 
34 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part L 
 
 the time immediately following his death. When they came to 
 observe that instead of decaying the disciples were increasing and 
 flourishing, and were obliged to take more notice of them, it did 
 not seem worth while to take any very strict measures against 
 them. Even the division between the two sects of the Pharisees 
 and Sadducees, as it is represented in the different attitudes which 
 Gamaliel and the members of the Sanhedrim take up with reference 
 to the disciples of Jesus, can scarcely be taken as historical. • It 
 has been remarked with justice,^ "Although the Sadducees had 
 allied themselves for a common object with Caiaphas the High 
 Priest, who had condemned Jesus, and afterwards endeavoured with 
 special zeal to ruin the Apostles, we find no historical trace that 
 Caiaphas himself was a Sadducee; the Sadducees first appear 
 with true party bigotry against the Apostles on account of the 
 resurrection of Jesus." It is exactly this which must make us 
 suspicious about the part which the Sadducees are represented as 
 playing in the matter ; for it cannot but occur to us that, as theii 
 testimony to the resurrection of Jesus was the most importaat 
 thing the Apostles had to preach about, the Sadducees, who were 
 the declared enemies of the doctrine of the resurrection, must 
 surely have been their bitterest and most decided opponents. 
 The repeated and pointed observation that the Sadducees did 
 most to stir up persecution against the disciples, iv. 1, v. 17, and 
 principally from annoyance that they preached as a fact the re- 
 surrection of Jesus from the dead {Sia to KarayyeXkeiv ev to 
 Iijaov rrjv avdaTa<riv ttjv sk veKpcbv, iv. 2) has quite the appear- 
 ance of such an a priori combination. But if the Sadducees were 
 eager to procure the suppression of the disciples of Jesus, and if 
 all the plans and measures which they took proved fruitless, what 
 could have caused this failure but the influence of the opposite 
 party, that of the Pharisees ? It must have been a very weighty* 
 authority which could exert so much influence over the Sadducees, 
 and still their rage ; who else could have done this but the most 
 prominent Pharisaic leader of that time, the renowned Gamaliel? 
 1 Comp. Meyer, Apg. v. 17. 
 
Chap. I.] THM CSUBCE AT JERUSALEM. 35 
 
 And yet Gamaliel does not seem quite fitted for the part assigned 
 to him, or for the moderate and peaceful nature of the advice 
 ascribed to him, when we call to mind that the most zealous per- 
 secutor of the Christian Church of that time, Saul, had been edu- 
 cated in his school and on his principles. Therefore we must 
 give up the person of Gamaliel too, and reduce his celebrated advice 
 to the mere opinion prevailing among the Jewish rulers at that 
 time, that it might be the best way to leave the cause of Jesus to 
 its fate, in the full assurance that its little importance would soon 
 be made obvious.^ During this period, in which the disciples of 
 
 * That Gamaliel cannot really have spoken the words as they are put into hia 
 mouth by the author of the Acts, v. 35, is shown by the striking chronological 
 error in the appeal to the example o£ Theudas, who, according to Josephua 
 (Antiq. xx. 8), first appeared as a false prophet and agitator about ten years later, 
 under the procurator Cuspius Fadus. Aa Cuspius Fadus became procurator of 
 Judea about the year 44 of the Christian era, the revolt of Theudas could not 
 have occurred before that time. How little does the view expressed in the words 
 of Gamaliel, Acts v. 38, agree with the statement of facts as related in the whole 
 section comprising chapters iii.-v. If all these miracles were really performed as 
 is here narrated, and in so authentic a manner that the Sanhedrim itself could 
 not ignore them, nor bring forward anything against them — if the man lame 
 from his birth was healed by the word of the Apostle, and if the Apostles them- 
 selves, without any human intervention, were freed from prison by an angel from 
 heaven — how could Gamaliel, if he was a man such as is here described, unbiassed 
 and thoughtful, resting his judgment on experience, express himself so problem- 
 atically as he does here, and leave it to the future to decide whether this cause 
 were or were not divine ? If the miracles here related were really performed, so 
 much must have been quite evident ; they were publicly recognised, authentically 
 witnessed matters of fact, on which no one could throw any doubt. For what 
 could Gamaliel be waiting in order to give a decided opinion on the matter ? 
 For fresh miracles, which would not prove anything more than those already 
 performed ? Or for still greater additions to the number of adherents to the 
 disciples from among the people ? But even in this view everything had already 
 occurred which could be expected to occur. Every discourse of the Apostles had 
 been followed by the conversion of thousands ; the whole people hung with awe 
 and wonder on the preaching of the new faith, so that even the rulers did not 
 dare to employ force for fear of being stoned. What stronger testimony to the 
 popularity of the new doctrines could there well have been, and what danger must 
 not the Sanhedrim have incurred by continuing its opposition to the universal 
 inclination of the people ? If, on the other hand, we suppose that Gamaliel could 
 not deny the miracles that had been performed, but did not consider them as 
 divine, even then we cannot uuderstand whyhe should express himself so weakly 
 and undecidedly, and vote for the cessation of any measures of interference. If 
 
36 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 Jesus were not disturbed by their enemies, they had time to gam 
 fresh confidence from their belief in the resurrection, and to 
 strengthen themselves by winning new adherents to their cause. 
 Jerusalem was the best place for making such accessions. No 
 more momentous decision for the cause of Jesus could have been 
 taken than that of the disciples to remain in Jerusalem. Here 
 only could all the elements of union which were involved in 
 believing in the risen One operate effectively to keep them all to- 
 gether ; here only did a field of action open before them, rich in 
 probable results. Not without reason does the Acts of the Apostles 
 date back this resolve of the disciples to the command given by 
 Jesus shortly before his departure, namely, that they should not 
 leave Jerusalem, but remain there till the promise of the Holy 
 Spirit should be fulfilled, through whose power they were to be his 
 witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea, in Samaria, and even unto 
 the ends of the earth, Acts L 8. We must understand by this gift 
 of the Spirit the confidence and boldness with which the disciples 
 proclaimed the Gospel and endeavoured to work in its interest;' 
 and the actual results show us the internal connection, founded on 
 the nature of the case, which these two points bear to each other, 
 the staying in Jerusalem, and the descent of the Holy Spirit which 
 was represented as depending upon it. The same phenomenon 
 which the history of the first development of Christianity presents 
 
 the miracles were looked at as having been performed, but not as being divine, 
 hoTV could there be any doubt that a still worse deceit was being carried on, the 
 investigation and punishment of which ought to have been a highly important 
 duty of the Court ? If we conclude that the events took place as the narrative 
 says they did, but as we can scarcely think they did, the advice of GamaUel 
 appears to be wanting in the prudence which the case required, as too much had 
 already happened to allow such a movement to have its way undisturbed. Either 
 the testimony of truth must have been recognised, or active steps taken against 
 such a palpable deceit. But the two statements which here lie before us— on one 
 side the nominal facts, on the other the wise measures counselled by Gamahel— 
 do not agree. Either the events took place as they are here narrated, and 
 Gamaliel did not give such advice, or if he did give it, it did not hold the same 
 relation to the facts of the case as is represented. 
 
 1 Compare especially the passage, iv. 31 : cnXija-eria-av arnvTcs Trveiiiaros iy'm 
 Koi. iKoKovv Tov Xdyov Toii eeoO fiera Trapprja-ias. Also vi. 5 10. 
 
Chap. I.] THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM. 37 
 
 to us, namely, that the larger cities, such as Antioch, Eome, Corinth, 
 and Ephesus, became the first seats of Christianit}'-, and the start- 
 ing-points of its wider activity, meets us also in the fact that the 
 first Christian Church was established in Jerusalem. But here we 
 must work on a decidedly lower scale than that employed in the 
 Acts of the Apostles, when it speaks of the conversion at one time 
 of many thousands — indeed, we can scarcely accept the same 
 number of hundreds. We have a remarkable instance of how little 
 these numbers are to be relied on in Acts i. 15. We are there told 
 that after the ascension of Jesus the disciples numbered altogether 
 a hundred and twenty. But, on the other hand, the Apostle Paul, 
 whose testimony is earlier and has a greater claim to credibility, 
 speaks of five hundred brethren to whom Jesus appeared at once 
 after his resurrection. If the small number be manifestly incorrect, 
 the subsequent statement of much larger numbers (Acts ii. 41, iv. 4)- 
 is no more worthy of credit, and we must come to the conclusion 
 that the lesser number precedes the greater, in order to give a more 
 vivid impression of the speedy and remarkable growth of the 
 Church. In addition to this, when we consider the persecution of 
 Stephen, we cannot think of the Church at Jerusalem as so im- 
 portant and as consisting of such a number of believers, as we 
 must suppose it to have done if we accept all the increase to it 
 mentioned in these passages of the Acts, ii. 41, iv. 4, v. 14, vi. 1, 7. 
 From all this there is strongly impressed upon us the conviction 
 that if we wish to arrive at a proper conception of this earliest 
 period, we must not place much weight on the different figures 
 and the accounts of the different events here given us. This re- 
 mark applies equally to the speeches contained in this part of the 
 Acts of the Apostles which were delivered on various occasions by 
 the Apostle Peter, and to the Christian hymn, iv. 24. They may 
 be taken as fragmentary pictures of the circle of action and ideas 
 in which this first Christian Church moved, and as interesting 
 evidence how the first disciples of Jesus sought, both for themselves 
 and for others, to harmonise Faith in Him, the Eisen and Ascended 
 One, with the Jewish standpoint on which they stood, by appealing 
 
38 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 to those passages in the Old Testament which were thought capable 
 of a Messianic reference to Jesus. But however suitably these pas- 
 sages are interwoven with the historical narrative, they cannot make 
 the historical sequence of events more probable, and we must con- 
 sider their bearing on the facts to which they are thus applied as 
 a very accidental and capricious one. The only question remaining 
 after the preceding inquiry is whether in the unhistorical parts of 
 this section the author composed freely at first hand, or followed a 
 tradition which he found already existing. Doubtless both elements 
 exist here in very close connection. Taking into consideration the 
 theatre on which the events of the narrative are carried on, which 
 is the sacred circle of the first Christian Church, we are disposed 
 to assign no mean share to tradition ; but a writer like the author 
 of the Acts of the Apostles cannot deny himself the right to use 
 even traditional materials in a free and independent manner. 
 
 So little do we here stand on firm historical ground, that even 
 the fact that persecutions did arise against the Apostles and the 
 early Church could scarcely be deemed to be proved beyond all 
 question, if it rested on no other evidence than what this narrative 
 supplies. What follows this ideal scene, however, the martyr- 
 dom of Stephen and the persecution of the Christians which was 
 connected with it, wears the indubitable stamp of historical reality. 
 
 On the same day on which Stephen, the first martyr, fell a 
 victim to his energetic activity in spreading the new doctriae, a 
 great persecution broke out against the Church at Jerusalem. The 
 Christians aU left Jerusalem and scattered themselves in Judea 
 and Samaria; only the Apostles, it is said, remained behind in 
 Jerusalem, viii. 1. This may justly surprise us. We might im- 
 agine that they were made an exception from the rest simply 
 because it seemed inconsistent with their dignity to fly before 
 danger and leave the appointed scene of their labours ; although 
 the Apostle Peter, when placed in a similar position, does not seem 
 to have had any such scruples, xii. 17. However, it cannot be 
 doubted that they did remain behind in Jerusalem, where we im- 
 mediately afterwards find them, viii. 14. But if they remained we 
 
Chap. I.] TEE CHUBGH AT JERUSALEM. 39 
 
 cannot believe tliat they were the only ones who did so ; we are 
 rather led to suppose from the whole circumstances that the per- 
 secution, which was occasioned by the actions of the Hellenist 
 Stephen, was directed chiefly against the Hellenistic part of the 
 Church, which, with Stephen, had placed itself in open opposition 
 to the existing Temple worship. But the Hebraistic part, which, 
 with the Apostles, adhered to that worship even more closely than 
 before (Luke xxiv. 53, Acts ii. 46, iii. 1, 11, iv. 1, v. 25), was not 
 included in a persecution which was aimed at its enemies. Had 
 all the Christians in Jerusalem left the city with the sole exception 
 of the Apostles, something more would certainly have been said of 
 the return of the fugitives to the Church, which we find maintain- 
 ing itself in Jerusalem after that time. But nothing of this kind 
 occurs ; we are told merely that they were scattered widely abroad, 
 and founded new churches in other places. One of the fugitives, 
 Philip, remained in Ceesarea (viii. 40, xxi. 8) after he had preached 
 the Gospel in Samaria ; although, as he is named with Stephen as 
 one of the seven deacons, we should certainly have expected that 
 he would have returned to Jerusalem as soon as circumstances per- 
 mitted. We must therefore suppose that this first persecution of 
 the Christians produced this important result for the Church in 
 Jerusalem ; that the two elements composing it, the Hellenistic and 
 Hebraistic, united hitherto, though in some respects differing, were 
 now outwardly separated from each other. At that time the 
 Church at Jerusalem became purely Hebraistic ; as such it adhered 
 closely to its strictly Judaizing character, and it developed at a 
 later time a strenuous opposition to the freer Hellenistic Chris- 
 tianity. It would seem that the Church at Jerusalem was desirous 
 even then, in order to further its Judaizing views, to bring the 
 Christian Churches which were at a distance from Jerusalem into 
 closer relations of dependence on itself, in order to prevent the free 
 development of Hellenistic principles. This was probably the 
 reason for the mission of the Apostles Peter and John into Samaria ; 
 the alleged reason that they might bestow on the Samaritans whom 
 Philip had converted and baptised the gift of the Holy Spirit by 
 
40 LIFU AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 laying on of hands, gives no clear idea of the case. This repre- 
 sentation involves the notion of an outward communication of the 
 Spirit bestowed by the Apostles as the immediate organ of the 
 Holy Spirit, and accompanied by miraculous signs. In the same 
 manner as Peter and John were sent into Samaria, Peter afterwards 
 travelled into Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, and visited the churches 
 established there (ix. 31, sq), in the name, as appears from xi. 1, 
 sq., of the Church at Jerusalem, and in the interests of its fixed 
 Judaistic principles ; but there is nothing said here of imparting 
 the Holy Spirit to the newly-converted by the hands of an Apostle. 
 We might also suppose that when it was known in Jerusalem that 
 the Christian faith was accepted in Antioch, Barnabas made a 
 similar journey of visitation to that city. But this is very doubtfuL 
 Neander himself says (p. 139, Bohn 99): "Astonishment and 
 mistrust seem to have been awakened in Jerusalem by the news 
 that in Antioch a church of Gentile Christians was arising which 
 did not hold the ceremonial law in observance." But if this were 
 the case, Barnabas the Hellenist would scarcely have been selected 
 for the visit to Antioch, as his liberal principles, so nearly alUed 
 to the Pauline standpoint (as was proved by the sequel), could not 
 have been unknown at that time to the Church at Jerusalem. 
 There is every indication that he did not undertake the journey to 
 Antioch as an errand from the Church, for there is no trace of his 
 being in any way dependent on the Church at Jerusalem. It even 
 seems doubtful if he had been in Jerusalem before he went to 
 Antioch, since his name (ix. 27) is associated with events which 
 we will show can scarcely have happened in the manner related. 
 Perhaps, therefore, after the persecution which followed the death 
 of Stephen, he had left Jerusalem with the rest, and at last found 
 with Paul in Antioch the sphere of action which promised greater 
 freedom to his individuality. The actual division between the two 
 elements of the Church, formerly allied together, became wider and 
 wider, but it existed before this. The persecution itself shows 
 that a distinction was drawn between the Hebraists and the Hellen- 
 ists by the Jews at Jerusalem. "We have probably to seek for the 
 
Chap. I.] TEE CHUBCH AT JERUSALEM. 41 
 
 first germ of the dissension which arose between the two divisions 
 of the Church in Jerusalem, in the facts related, Acts vi. \,sq. We 
 are here told of the neglect of the widows of the Hellenists in the 
 apportioning of the daily gifts and of their openly-declared dissatis- 
 faction against the Hebrews. That joyyvafio'; of the Hellenists 
 against the Hebrews brings us down at once from the ideal har- 
 monious relations of the Primitive Church to the sphere of life's 
 ordinary reality. It seems to have had deeper grounds in the dis- 
 like between the two parties, from which such disputes as these 
 derived importance. The fact that such a grievance existed, and 
 the means that were taken to remove it, namely, the institution of 
 the office of deacon and the appointment of Hellenists, as it appears, 
 to all the newly-created offices — aU this shows us that the acces- 
 sions the Church had gained had consisted chiefly of Hellenists. 
 This of course enabled the liberal turn of thought which was ex- 
 hibited by the Hellenists, as distinguished from the Hebrews, to 
 have more scope. If these appointments were really made as is 
 related, we shall have some indication of the spirit in which they 
 were made, and of the previous condition of the Church, in the 
 fact that Stephen, of whom we know something, was one of those 
 who were then appointed. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 STEPHEN THE PEEDECESSOE OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 According to the Acts of the Apostles, the first disciples of Jesus 
 adhered as nearly as possible to the Jewish religion and to the 
 national worship. The only thing that distinguished them from ■ 
 the rest of the Jews was the conviction at which they had arrived, 
 that the promised Messiah had appeared in Jesus of Nazareth. 
 They saw nothing antagonistic to their national consciousness in 
 this belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Yet in this belief, simple and 
 undeveloped as it was, a breach was introduced into their con- 
 sciousness as Jews, which might seem insignificant at first, but 
 could not fail to divide Judaism and Christianity further and 
 further from each other. The persecution to which Stephen fell a 
 victim shows us clearly that he was the first to express this 
 antagonism between Christianity and Judaism as a thing clearly 
 felt and not to be concealed. There is more doubt attendant on 
 the statement made in the Acts of the Apostles as to the form 
 in which he first gave decided expression to this antagonism. 
 He is represented as having had disputes with the different Hel- 
 lenistic communities in Jerusalem, to whom he had doubtless 
 turned with especial confidence, that they, as Hellenists, would have 
 understood the views and principles which he considered to be the 
 essence of his Christian faith. As for the charge on which he was 
 condemned, we hear merely that certain false witnesses stated that 
 he had expressed himself in an irreligious manner against the 
 Jewish Temple worship and the Mosaic law, and had proclaimed 
 
Chap. II.] STEPHEN THE PBEDECESSOB OF PAUL. 43 
 
 the impending destruction of the Mosaic religion through the 
 teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. What was true and what false 
 in those charges, the Acts of the Apostles does not say ; whether 
 founded or unfounded is left to be deduced from Stephen's speech 
 in his own defence. To this speech, which, if it be the work of 
 Stephen himself, is incontestably one of the most important docu- 
 ments of that period, we are accordingly referred. But the point 
 of authorship is by no means settled. In order to pronounce upon 
 it we have to examine the contents of the speech itself, for the 
 latest commentators have failed to penetrate into its argument and 
 internal arrangement ; they have discovered no plan in it, but a 
 bewildering variety of meanings. 
 
 The first and greatest difficulty is generally found in the fact 
 that Stephen takes so little notice of the special accusation against 
 which he is defending himself. But the truth is, that he takes up 
 this subject not in its special bearing on himself, but in its wider 
 scope ; the application to himself and his own case comes in at the 
 close as a natural deduction from this general view. The contents 
 of the speech divide themselves into two parts running parallel to 
 one another ; on one side are enumerated the favours which from 
 the earliest times God bestowed on His people, whilst on the other 
 the behaviour of the people towards God is contrasted with them. 
 Hence we find the prevailing idea of the speech to be that in 
 proportion as the favours which God from the beginning bestowed 
 on the people were great and extraordinary, the attitude of the 
 people towards the Divine will was from the beginning unthankful 
 and rebellious, so that where a thoroughly harmonious relation 
 ought to have subsisted, the greatest antagonism prevailed, and in 
 the same proportion in which God on the one hand had done every- 
 thing to draw the people to Him and raise them to Himself, the 
 people had turned away from God. "Whilst the speaker takes up 
 the relation of the people to God from this general point of view, 
 it is clear how his own case is involved in it : this, however, comes 
 prominently forward in one of the main points of the speecL 
 Stephen was accused of having spoken irreverently, not only 
 
44 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 against the Mosaic law, but also against the Temple. In evident' 
 reference to this accusation, the Temple is one of the chief matters 
 on which the argument turns. The Temple is the ultimate goal 
 to which the promises tend, the focus of their fulfilment.^ And so 
 the peculiar spirit which had characterised the people from the 
 beginning must, since God and the people stood thus opposed to 
 each other, show itself in connection with the Temple. 
 
 The speaker thus reduced the accxisation which had been raised 
 against him, or rather the antagonism which the people displayed 
 by this accusation against him and the Divine cause which he 
 advocated, to the attitude which they had taken up towards 
 God all along ; and this of course implied that his speech took the 
 form of a historical review. He- began from the earliest times, and 
 enumerated the whole series of events of which Jewish history- 
 consists, to which he indicated the present crisis had now to 
 be added as a further development. These epochs, which are to 
 be distinguished in the course- of Jewish history, form the chief 
 points of the speech. 
 
 The fh'st part of the speech treats of the period from Abraham 
 up to the time when the people had become a nation in Egypt, 
 and when Moses appeared as their liberator. During this first 
 period, the goodness of God to the people manifested itself in all 
 its fulness, inasmuch as the promises given by God to his chosen 
 Abraham were not confined to him alone, but extended to his 
 descendants, and the people who should proceed from them. For 
 the people's sake he was obliged tO' leave his home and kindred, 
 and wander in the land where his people were at some future time 
 to come to dwell, but where he himself was not to possess so much 
 land as to set his foot on. The land was promised to the people; 
 and although Abraham at that time had no child, yet all God's 
 dealings with him had reference to his posterity, v. 5. The destiny 
 of the people was foretold even at that time, and it was announced 
 as the crowning point of all the promises that they should serve 
 
 1 Acts vii. 7, cf. verse 46 sq. The Tdffos of the seventh verse is the temple, 
 ■which is also called o ayios Tonos, cf. xxi. 28. 
 
Chap. II.] STEPHEN THE PBEDEGESSOJR OF PAUL. 45 
 
 God in the place where now the Temple stood. Circumcision was 
 given as a token that all the promises to Abraham were to have 
 reference to his posterity; by this token all the descendants of 
 Abraham were to enter directly after their birth into their full 
 right to the promises given to him. Hence everything having 
 happened up to this time with a view to the posterity (outw?, vii. 8), 
 this posterity now began to appear in Isaac. How little share the 
 patriarchs themselves had in the land of promise, the spirit of the 
 divine promise being rather to exclude them, was to be seen first 
 in the history of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt, and then in that 
 of the rest of the patriarchs who followed him there, after suffering 
 the most extreme want in the land of promise. So little did they 
 enjoy the promised land during their lifetime ; and after their 
 death it was still apparent how little the promise affected them. 
 After their death in Egypt, their bones were indeed brought back 
 to Palestine, and buried in the burial-place of Abraham ; but, in the 
 first place, Abraham had been obliged to buy this burial-place for 
 a sum of money ; and then it did not lie even in the actual pro- 
 mised land, but only in Sichem, in the country of the Samaritans, 
 so hated by the Jews. Thus, even in death, they were not allowed 
 to rest in peace in the land of promise. 
 
 The second part of the speech embraces the period extending 
 from the residence of the people in Egypt and the appearance of 
 Moses, to the times of David and Solomon (vii. 1 7-46). During the 
 time treated of in the first part of the speech, the people did not 
 yet exist ; that section therefore dealt only with what God resolved to 
 do for the people about to be formed. Of course there could be then 
 no question of the relation of the people to God ; but so much the 
 more had this relation to be dealt with in the second part of the 
 speech. For in the beginning of the second period, which the 
 second part of the speech now proceeds to take up, the descendants 
 of the patriarchs in Egypt had grown into a great nation ; and as 
 soon as this came to pass, God let nothing be wanting to bring about 
 the fulfilment of the long-promised blessing of which the people 
 was the proper object. But now how did the people behave? 
 
46 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 First of all, they showed themselves incapable of understanding 
 the deed which Moses— who had been so wonderfully preserved 
 for his great work, and so carefully educated for it — performed for 
 them as an earnest of greater deeds to come, vii. 25. They even 
 broke out into open opposition against him, vii. 27. For these 
 reasons Moses was obliged to flee out of Egypt from his own 
 brethren. Notwithstanding this, God afterwards carried out, 
 through him, the work he had determined on of saving the people 
 from Egypt, by sending Moses, who had been rejected by his 
 brethren, back to Egjrpt, as their leader and deliverer, to bring 
 them out with signs and wonders. But against this Moses, from 
 whom they had received the promise of a prophet like unto him- 
 self — this Moses who, in the solemn assembly at Sinai, was the 
 Mediator between the people and God (or the angel who spoke with 
 him in the place of God), and who received there the law as " lively 
 oracles" — against this man the people committed an act of dis- 
 obedience by which they turned back again to Egypt in their 
 idolatrous hearts, and even forced Aaron to make for them a golden 
 calf, as a symbol of the old gods whom they had seen worshipped 
 there ; and not content even with this one worship, they fell into all 
 kinds of idolatry. Yet God did not on this account delay the fulfil- 
 ment of what He had once promised. The ancient words of promise, 
 Xarpevaova-i fiov ev Ta> totto) tovtw, vii. 7, had not been fulfilled. 
 The aKrjvri tov (laprvplov (of which the ctktjvt) of Moloch, vii. 43, 
 was the idolatrous antitype, and with which the speaker therefore 
 passes over to ver. 44) accompanied the Israelites as a mere mov- 
 able tent through the wilderness, yet it was brought by them into 
 the promised land and remained in the same form until the time 
 of David. To realise the word of promise in this respect was 
 reserved for the third period. 
 
 This third period, to which the third part of the speech refers, 
 comprehends the age of David and Solomon. Instead of the 
 movable tabernacle earned from place to place, David and Solomon 
 established the Temple at Jerusalem as a permanent abode for the 
 worship of God. But now the godless and carnal temper of the 
 
Chap. II.] STEP3EN THE PREDECESSOR OF PAUL. 47 
 
 people manifested itself more openly, for they changed the general 
 aspect of their religion with the change of the place where they 
 worshipped. Now that they possessed a permanent Temple, their 
 religion took the form of a Levitical worship attached to the Temple, 
 and became a formalism composed of outward rites and ceremonies. 
 For what did the Prophets who appeared from this time forward 
 contend for, if not for a spiritual worship of God ? What else was 
 the cause of the suffering and persecutions which they underwent 
 — of the martyr deaths which so many of them died, as forerunners 
 of the coming Messiah — but this constant struggle against the 
 people's merely external worship through which the adoration 
 of God in spirit and in truth was completely superseded ? 
 
 The last portion of the speech is undoubtedly to be understood 
 in this way : the speaker draws the picture that is before his mind 
 in a few bold strokes, and it is clearly evident how this conclusion 
 of the speech is in agreement with its design as a whole, as well 
 as with the apologetic aim of the speaker. This point, however, 
 appears to me to need a more exact inquiry. 
 
 If we look at the conclusion of the speech in the way here 
 indicated, the question may arise whether the speaker meant that 
 the exclusive tendency of the people towards the outward and cere- 
 monial, developed in the existing Temple worship, was to be con- 
 sidered as a fresh token of their perversity, or whether he did not 
 intend to point out that the very building of a permanent Temple 
 was to be considered a corruption. The question is by no means 
 answered by the fact that it is said of David, after he had craved 
 permission from God to build a " dwelling for the God of Jacob," 
 that "he found favour before God." These words only mean 
 that David laid his entreaty before God in the full confidence of 
 possessing the grace of God which had been vouchsafed to him ; 
 but that the entreaty itself was the subject of divine favour is not 
 here stated. Neither must we omit to mention that David is said 
 to have wished merely to evpeiv <7Ki^va)/ia tqJ Oea laKoi^, but the 
 building of a special oIko<; is ascribed to Solomon, of whose conduct 
 in doing so nothing is said. Is not a disapproving sentence passed 
 
48 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part I, 
 
 on the building of the Temple itself — in so far as it confined to a 
 settled, narrow spot that worship of God which had hitherto 
 regarded the great free Universe as his natural Temple? This 
 sentence is surely implied in the direct contrast presented to the 
 statement, ^oXofiwv 8e (pKoSd/xrjcrev avroi oIkov, by the words 
 immediately following : " Albeit the Most High dwelleth not in 
 temples made with hands — as saith the Prophet, Heaven is my 
 throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? 
 saith the Lord, or where is the place of my rest ? Hath not my 
 hand made all these things ? " The external, sensuous, ceremonial 
 worship of the Jews may not have been the necessary consequence 
 of' the building of the Temple, yet it was open to the speaker so 
 to consider it ; and that he really does so consider it is clear not 
 only from the antithesis present in the two verses, 47 and 48, hut 
 also in what he says of the " tabernacle of witness,'' in verse 
 44. For why should it have been here said that the " tabernacle 
 of witness " was possessed by the fathers in the wilderness in the 
 form in which Moses had been ordered to make it, "after the 
 fashion he had seen," by the Being who spoke with him — God, or 
 the angel standing in the place of God, ver. 30 — if not with the 
 view of calling attention to the great difference between the Ideal 
 and the Eeal, and at the same time to the difference between 
 a spiritual and sensuous worship of God? According to the 
 opinion of the speaker as here indicated, the "tabernacle of 
 witness," free, movable, wandering from place to place, hound 
 to no particular spot, and therefore imparting its own movahle- 
 ness to the worship connected with it, fulfilled much better the 
 aim of a spiritual service of God than the massive, stationary 
 Temple, with the rigid fixed worship which it occasioned— in 
 which the external, visible, and tangible machinery of worship 
 assumed an ov-^whelming preponderance, and ceased to be a living 
 and flexible expression of that invisible Ideal— the Heavenly 
 " fashion " which Moses had seen. David, therefore, was truer to 
 the idea which the aK'qvri rov fiapTvplov represented : all that he 
 wanted to do was to replace the ctkiji/^ with a aK^vmfia. It was 
 
Chap. II.] STEPHEN THE PREDECESSOR OF PAUL. 49 
 
 Solomon whose reign was so marked a turning-point in this 
 particular, who huilt an actual " house " for God. If this (as can- 
 not he douhted) is the real and true sense which the speaker 
 intended to express in the last part of his speech, we must not 
 understand the former words of promise, XaTpevaoval fioi ev rm 
 To-K(p Tovrm, as referring immediately and exclusively to the Temple. 
 The idea of the conclusion of the speech, viewed in the light of 
 these words, must be this : " If by this place we understand the 
 Temple only, then we are chargeable with that external and 
 sensuous turn of thought which lies at the root of the Temple 
 worship ; this is just the error of the prevailing form of worship, 
 that it is thought that God can be worshipped in no other place 
 than in a temple raised to Him by the hands of men." In this 
 way we see how the speech answers sufficiently the apologetic aim 
 of the speaker, although it partakes so little of the nature of a 
 defence in point of outward form. The denunciation of the 
 Temple with which the speaker was charged had in fact been 
 directed against the outward ceremonial service to which at that 
 time the true essence of the Jewish religion had been perverted ; 
 and his protest proceeded from the same interest in the true 
 spiritual worship of God which had animated the prophets. In 
 giving utterance to these views the speaker gave all the defence 
 he had to dfer ; but he cannot have concealed from himself that 
 with such a defence he could have no expectation of inducing his 
 judges to acknowledge the justice of his cause. The whole 
 speech takes for granted that the defence cannot possibly be 
 successful. He addresses himself to the task of contrasting 
 the goodness and grace of God towards the people with the 
 behaviour of the people towards God ; he shows in the fairest 
 light the goodness and grace of God, by showing how it was 
 the fulfilment of promises that had been made to the people 
 before they were a people, and could apply to iione but them. 
 But in dwelling upon this he is also exhibiting the grossness of 
 the people's perversity; ingratitude and disobedience, with that 
 overwhelming bias towards materialism which the people had 
 VOL. r. ^ 
 
50 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 always manifested, must really have beea their truest and most 
 characteristic nature, because from the beginning — from the first 
 moment in which they began to be a nation— they showed no other 
 inclination. But what is so deeply rooted in the inmost being of 
 an individual or of a nation as to be almost an innate and natural 
 passion, must always exhibit itself outwardly in the occurrence 
 of the same behaviour; it is an invincible tendency which it 
 is at any time useless trouble to attack. This ruling idea of the 
 speaker explains how from the beginning of his sketch, there 
 is an obvious parallel between the earlier and later times, and the 
 fate of Moses is typical of that of Christ. Moses appears as a 
 deliverer (XuTpwr?;?, vii. 35) ; from him also do the people receive 
 the words of life {\6yta ^wvTa, vii. 38) ; out of his mouth comes the 
 promise {Trpo<^7)T7)v vfuv avaaTiiaei Kvpio'i o ©eo? eK raiv aSeK^Sm 
 vfjbwv a)<; ejjbi, vii. 37). How then can we wonder that this 
 prophet like unto Moses had to endure what Moses endured, only 
 in a greater degree, from the disposition of his people, so closed 
 against all higher influence, so opposed to the divine ? How can 
 we wonder that if the prophets — the foretellers of the Coming One 
 — were persecuted and slain, the Eighteous One also, when He came, 
 found betrayers and murderers? how wonder that the same fate 
 still overtakes all those who. seek to labour in the same spirit? 
 With such accusers and such judges the speaker himself does not 
 anticipate any better result from his defence. The people would 
 have been false to their inmost nature if they had not sacrificed 
 him to their own want of comprehension of a spiritual worship of 
 God, and their consequent hatred of him. Therefore the feehng 
 of the speaker, which up to this point was kept under and controlled 
 as his historical treatment of his leading ideas demanded, breaks 
 out at the close without further moderation or restraint, in the 
 words : cTKXTjpoTpa^ifKoi, kcll aTreplTfjuijToi rrj KapSia Koi rot? m(7tv, 
 f/ift? aei Tft) TTvevfjiaTt tm dyia avTml-irTeTe, co? ol Trarepe? viivtv 
 KM v/j,eL';. Tuva t5>v irpocjjrjTOJv, etc. oiTtvei eXaySere tov vo/iov 6i5 
 BiaTaya<; ayyeTujyv, Kai ovk e^vkd^are, vii. 51. This it was, then, 
 that the speaker had on his heart from the beginning, and now at last 
 
Chap. II.] STEPHEN THE PBEDEOESSOB OF PAUL. 51 
 
 uttered freely and openly. The accusation brought against him 
 of irreligion in regard to the roTro'i ap/io<; and the vo/j,o';, and the 
 sentence of condemnation pronounced thereby on the Christian 
 faith, fell back on his accusers and judges ; but his own fate was at 
 the same time sealed. The question which some interpreters have 
 raised as to the conclusion of the speech, and which is commonly 
 answered in the affirmative, finds here its answer, namely, whether 
 Stephen was interrupted by his hearers; whether, therefore, his 
 speech was not finished? In one sense it was interrupted; his 
 passionate words must have provoked his hearers to a point at 
 which it must have been out of the question to listen to him 
 any longer. In another sense it was not interrupted ; he had in 
 reality said all that he had to say. Wliat continuation does the 
 plan and development of his speech admit of? He had laid 
 bare to their deepest root the impure motives that lay at the founda- 
 tion of the accusation raised against him ; he had kept back nothing 
 that could have been said directly or indirectly to expose the 
 nature of his enemies' proceedings ; he had carried on his speech 
 to a point when the chief reproach which had been made against 
 him about the totto? ayio'i received an exhaustive answer ; and of 
 what use could any further continuation of his speech have been ? 
 That he did not intend to say anything more about the time of the 
 prophets, is shown by the comprehensive summary in which (vii. 
 49 and 52) he touches on this whole period; he had already left 
 this period behind him, and could not well go back to it again. 
 It might be thought that he had something further to say with 
 regard to the charge brought against him with reference to the 
 Mosaic law. But that is scarcely likely. The high respect with 
 which he spoke of Moses would defend him from this part of the 
 accusation ; the manner in which he treats of the giving of the Law 
 from Mount Sinai, and of the Law itseK as " lively oracles," would 
 serve to prove his recognition of the Divine origin and spiritual 
 contents of the Mosaic law. And as he turns the charge concerning 
 the T6'jro<; dyio<; back upon his enemies, so also does he deal with 
 the other charge concerning the vo/io-i in his concluding words : 
 
52 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Pakt I 
 
 eXd^ere tov vdfiov eh BiaTaya<s arfye\o)v, Kai, ovk e^vXa^are. 
 Was he then going to enlarge upon this ov ^vkaTxeiv f But this 
 ov (j)v\aTTeiv tov vofiov is sufficiently explained and justified by 
 what he had already said in the former part of the speech regardmg 
 the disobedience of the people towards Moses, and their constant 
 tendency towards idolatry. From whatever side we look at it, 
 we find that the aim of the speaker was attained, and the main idea 
 of the speech quite sufficiently carried out. And how can we 
 think that the natural end of the speech had not been reached at 
 the point where we find it ended, when we reflect how flat and 
 superfluous anything that the speaker might have had to urge 
 further in his own defence would necessarily have appeared after 
 so emphatic and energetic an apostrophe against his enemies? 
 
 The more remarkable in contents and form this speech undeni- 
 ably appears according to the foregoing analysis, the more does it 
 appear that it must have been the work of a man possessing such 
 a mind as that of Stephen, whose superior wisdom and spirit have 
 already been expressly dwelt upon by the author, vi. 10. And if 
 it be argued that a speech so carefully conceived, and so measured 
 in design and execution, cannot be supposed to have been unpre- 
 meditated, as must necessarily have been the case if Stephen spoke 
 in these circumstances, c£ vi. 1 2, we may still say that this scarcely 
 applies to a speaker who had long had these ideas in his mind, and 
 had already arranged them in some order by dint of repeated use; 
 and in addition to this the historical form which the speech takes 
 would make an unpremeditated one very easy. We must also 
 remember how exactly the speech replies to the charge brought 
 against Stephen. How telling and striking is all that is said in 
 answer to the charge ! How thoroughly the speaker goes into the 
 matter in question, in order to attack the disposition of his enemies, 
 which led them to prosecute him, at its very roots ! 
 
 On the other hand there is very much to be said for the contrary 
 view ; it is impossible to suppose that we have here the speech of 
 Stephen himself in its original form. This speech, which so well 
 answered its purpose of refuting the charge of the accusers in the most 
 
Chap. II.] STEPHEN THE PBEBECESSOR OF PAUL. 53 
 
 complete and humiliating manner, and exposing the inward reason 
 of its futility, is,for this veryreason, of such a nature that the speaker 
 of it must have felt it to be utterly useless for his own personal 
 defence, and have seen that it could only exasperate his judges and 
 make his condemnation the more assured. This, however, does not 
 necessarily prove much, for Stephen did not belong to that class of 
 men who think more of their own personal interests than of the 
 universal cause of truth. A more serious difficulty is to be found in 
 the improbability that his enemies, angry and irritated as they were, 
 still had so much forbearance and patience as to listen to a defence 
 of such length, and deferred the renewed outbreak of their passion 
 until the speaker had completed his argument, and fully gained his 
 purpose in speaking. The interruption takes place just when the 
 speaker has worked out the idea of his speech ; his opponents now 
 discover to their extreme disgust that they have been listening to him 
 in a mistaken expectation of what was to follow, and as it were in 
 spite of themselves. (This trait is found also in connection with 
 Paul's speech at Athens.) Does not aU this look as if the writer had 
 been looking for a fitting situation for a speech of this nature, and 
 thought he had found it here ? We must therefore carefully consider 
 the circumstances under which Stephen delivered this speech. His 
 case is represented as having been tried before the Sanhedrim, and 
 the stoning which immediately followed the speech must be looked 
 upon as a sentence of death carried out at the command of the 
 Sanhedrim, or at least with its connivance. Now, it is well known 
 that the Sanhedrim could not execute a capital sentence without 
 the sanction of the Eoman Governor. But there is nothing said of 
 the concurrence of the Eoman Governor in this case, and in fact it 
 is impossible to assume that his concurrence was sought ; the 
 carrying out of the sentence followed so immediately on the trial 
 before the Sanhedrim that we cannot interpose a step like this 
 between the two. It is generally maintained, in view of this 
 deviation from the legally established rule, that the stoning of 
 Stephen could not have taken place before the year 36, as in that 
 year Pilate, under whom it is thought that the Sanhedrim would 
 
54 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 certainly never have dared to act in such a high-handed way, was 
 recalled from the Procuratorship of Judea. It is therefore asserted 
 that the most correct date for the condemnation of Stephen is in the 
 interval before the successor of Pilate, the new Procurator Marcellus, 
 arrived, and when L. Vitellius, the Proconsul of Syi'ia, who visited 
 Jerusalem in the year 37, conferred many favours on the heads of 
 the Jewish nation.^ Others, as Neander, Olshausen, and Meyer, 
 think that they can settle the difficulty which exists with reference 
 to the relation of the Sanhedrim to the Pioman Governor, by the 
 remark that the whole of the proceedings against Stephen were of 
 a very tumultuous character. " Perhaps," says Olshausen, " the 
 Sanhedrim, in order to avoid a collision with the Eoman magis- 
 trates, passed no formal sentence of condemnation ; but connived 
 at its execution, which was carried out by some fanatics." But in 
 this case also the whole blame of the trial must be laid on the 
 Sanhedrim. And what are we to think of this supreme spiritual 
 tribunal, which surely must have had the fear of the Eomans suffi- 
 ciently before its eyes to make it pay some attention at least to 
 legal form, if it allowed such an outburst of fury to take place 
 under its own eyes, some of its own members even taking part in 
 it (vi. 15, vii. 54, 57) before it came to pass sentence in its 
 capacity as a court of justice — for that there was no time for this 
 we must assume as certain ? What natural consistency is there 
 between the following facts : that Stephen was dragged before the 
 Sanhedrim from a street riot, then dragged away again in a riotous 
 manner to be stoned to death outside the city — and that these 
 enraged enemies of his showed so much gentleness and forbearance 
 that they could listen to a speech of such length and of such purport 
 between these two outbursts of their fury ? That Stephen was 
 seized and stoned in a tumultuous insurrection is indisputably the 
 fact which we have to regard as the nucleus of the story. Does 
 not the fact that the proceedings against Stephen were of a riotous 
 nature of itself make it improbable that there was any trial before 
 the Sanhedrim at aU ? and how much more when we consider the 
 1 Jos. Antiq. xviii. 6. 7. 
 
Chap. II.] STEPHEN TEE PBEDECES80B OF PAUL. 55 
 
 additional difficulties mentioned above 1 If we dismiss all idea of 
 the scene before the Sanhedrim, how natural and simple does the 
 whole story become ! What remains is then, that Stephen fell a 
 sacrifice to a popular tumult which suddenly arose on account of 
 his trenchant public utterances. Although the speech which he is 
 said to have delivered may be perfectly characteristic of the man, 
 though the religious theory it contains may have been actually his, 
 handed down in traditions which the author of the Acts employed 
 for his own purposes, still what is there to prevent our thinking that 
 it is the composition of the historian himself ? That he does not 
 consider himself as overstepping the bounds of his licence as a 
 historian by putting such speeches into the mouths of persons who 
 appear as actors in his history, is shown by many other similar 
 instances in the Acts of the Apostles. If he considered this to be 
 part of his historical task, why should not this appear to him to be 
 a good opportunity to represent a man who had appeared so pro- 
 minently in the history of that period, and had drawn so much 
 attention to himself by the religious opinions which he defended, 
 and by the fate which he underwent, as actually speaking in pubHc ? 
 If this was to be done, the speech must be delivered before the 
 court to whose jurisdiction the case belonged. The circumstances 
 which made such a trial before the Sanhedrim improbable assumed 
 far less importance in the eyes of an author who looked at the 
 relations and occurrences from a distance, than they do to us when 
 we attempt to reproduce the actual events and sequences of the 
 history. This is enough to explain to us in part how the author 
 came to represent the case as tried before the Sanhedrim. But I 
 think there is another point of view from which this circumstance 
 may be regarded. It is clear that the dying Stephen is a reflection 
 of the dying Saviour. As Jesus died with the prayer that the 
 sins of his enemies might be forgiven, so the last words of the 
 dying Stephen are Kvpie, fir} a-Trja-Tj^ avToU ttjv d/iapriav ravTTjv. 
 And as Jesus yielded up his spirit to the Father, so did Stephen to 
 the Lord Jesus.^ To this parallel hovering before the writer's 
 ' It is worthy of remark that both these expressions of Jesus adopted by Stephen 
 
56 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 eye between the first martyr and the dying Saviour must be 
 ascribed the fact that the scene before the Sanhedrim becomes for 
 Stephen a scene of transfiguration. As the Saviour was raised to 
 the glory of the Father through a similar death, so the radiant, 
 divine light streaming around him as he sits on the Throne of the 
 Godhead must also shine on the first of the martyrs who followed 
 him. Nor was it enough that in this hour in which he was glori- 
 fied by an end like that of Jesus, he should see the "heavens 
 opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God," 
 ready to receive him.^ Even before his trial by the Sanhedrim 
 began, his judges saw " his face shine as though it had been the face 
 of an angel." What can be more reasonable than to think that 
 this parallel with Jesus, which is so unmistakably indicated here, 
 coloured the statement of what occurred previous to the stoning? 
 
 are only found in the Gospel of Luke, xxiii. 34, 46. The three other Evangelists 
 do not give them, as ia well known. It is natural that the author of the Acts of 
 the Apostles should adhere closely to the Gospel of Luke, but is it as natural that 
 Stephen should have confined himself to these expressions of Jesus, which are 
 found in Luke's Gospel ? 
 
 1 Only a modern critic could here ask the question, "How Stephen could have 
 seen the Heavens opened in the room in which doubtless the sitting of the San- 
 hedrim was held?" Meyer answers the question as follows: "The Heavens 
 may have been visible to him through the windows of the session chamber." 
 Neander and Olshausen adopt without hesitation the theory (which Meyer also 
 assumes) of an ecstasy, a prophetic spiritual intuition which Stephen had, and 
 which took the form of a symbolical vision, so that when he looked up to the 
 Heavens they seemed to open before his eyes. How paltry and arbitrary a thing 
 does interpretation become when it tries to give an account of things which in 
 themselves are very unimporbant, and yet assume a fictitious importance when it 
 is attempted to frame an idea, by means of them, of how the events occurred ! We 
 may dismiss Meyer's looking out of the window, but the ecstasy is also a mere 
 hypothesis, and it is just as reasonable to suppose that what the author repre- 
 sents Stephen as having seen and said was simply his own view of the situation 
 which he described as an actual occurrence. We may take the perfectly 
 analogous example, vi. 15, arevicravTes cij avrov vavris oi KadeCoficvoi Iv to 
 (Tvvedpim, ei8ov tA irpoaanov avTov acrel irpoo-amov dyyeXov. It is said that 
 Stephen was so transfigured that men thought they saw an angel in him. This 
 view of Stephen can certainly only have been taken by his friends and adherents; 
 it is perfectly clear that there is here only related the subjective Christian side of 
 an objective phenomenon which involuntarUy attracted the notice even of his 
 opponents. 
 
Chap. II.] UTEPHEN THE PBEDECESSOB OF PAUL. 57 
 
 This appears all the more natural when we consider that the charge 
 against Stephen was only a repetition of that already made against 
 Jesus, that he had said hwajxai KaraXvcrat top vaov rov Qeov, 
 Matt. xxvi. 61, Mark xiv. 58, with the addition tovtov tov -xeipo- 
 iroi,7)Tov. That Stephen's attack on the existing temple worship 
 was the cause of the outbreak of fury against him to which he 
 fell a victim cannot be doubted. And as false witnesses were 
 brought against Jesus with the same charge (Matt. xxvi. 60, etc.), 
 false witnesses must not be wanting in this case (although there 
 seems little reason why their testimony should have been a false 
 one) ; and as the condemnation of Jesus took place before the 
 Sanhedrim, so the same conditions must be fulfilled in this case. 
 In short, everything in the whole matter must be exactly similar. 
 People, priests, scribes, elders, and the whole Sanhedrim, must be 
 set in motion, — Acts vi. 12, vii. 1, and Matt. xxvi. 57-59. 
 
 Notwithstanding all this it cannot be doubted that the attack 
 of Stephen on the Jewish national worship was the cause of the 
 outbreak of indignation to which he fell a victim. The author 
 of the Acts of the Apostles states that the accusation brought 
 against Stephen was the work of false witnesses ; but the parallel 
 charge brought against Jesus cannot be held as completely false. 
 What was false in the testimony of the false witnesses may only 
 have referred to the form in which they brought forward an accu- 
 sation, which was substantially true ; perhaps in the special mention 
 of the Temple, a design to destroy which was, particularly after the 
 event had actually come about, the pregnant and concrete expres- 
 sion of all hostility to the existing national worship, and could 
 only be supposed to proceed from an inimical Gentile feeling. 
 This charge, the same which had led to the condemnation of 
 Jesus, was the outcome of the feeling which even then possessed 
 the Jewish enemies of Christianity, and in which they were not 
 deceived, that Christianity would make a great change upon their 
 own religion. That the essence of true religion did not consist in 
 outward ceremonials, connected with a temple service confined to 
 one appointed spot, — this was the great idea, through which, even at 
 
58 LIFE AND WORK OP PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 that time, Judaism saw itself in danger of being superseded by- 
 Christianity. This inevitable rending asunder of Christianity 
 from Judaism, whereby Judaism would cease to be considered an 
 absolute religion, and by which its final extinction was threatened, 
 had been clearly perceived and even expressed by Stephen ; the 
 high and free standpoint to which he felt himself raised by this 
 discovery fostered in him the energetic zeal with which he laboured 
 in the cause of Jesus — and in proportion to this was the earnestness 
 of the opposition which he drew down on himself 
 
 This spirit of Christianity, asserting itseK all at once in its full 
 power and true meaning in Stephen, is a startling phenomenon, 
 as even the Apostles occupy much lower ground in comparison 
 with him. Bu.t in this affair there is no mention made of the 
 Apostles ; it is Stephen alone who wages this fresh and so 
 momentous battle against the enemy ; and whilst he considers the 
 Temple worship, with aU its outward forms, as a thing already 
 antiquated and in ruins, the Apostles always remain immovably 
 true to their old adherence to the Temple. This relation of Stephen 
 to his immediate surroundings is of itself enough to give us a high 
 opinion of the man ; but let us further consider the historical con- 
 nection to which he belongs. The rise of distinctively Hellenistic 
 Churches in Judea and the bordering countries, viii. 1-4, ix. 31, 
 XV. 3, is to be traced to that persecution whose cause and victim 
 he was ; but more than this — we find that the Hellenists, who were 
 scattered far and near, soon became impatient of the restrictions 
 their connection with the Mother Church of Jerusalem tended to 
 impose on them, and took the important step of preaching the 
 Gospel not exclusively to the Jews, but to the Gentiles also. The 
 first impulse to this course of action must certainly be looked for 
 in the same Hellenistic circle of ideas in which Stephen worked ; 
 as soon as men felt, what Stephen had come to see, that they were 
 no longer bound to the old cramping forms of Judaism, they also 
 saw that the division which separated Jew and GentUe could no 
 longer be considered an essential thing. So nearly do Stephen and 
 Paul here approach each other, though when we see them first, at 
 
Chap. II.] STEPHEN THE PBEBECESSOR OF PAUL. 69 
 
 the martyr- death of the former, they appear to be as far as the 
 poles asunder. The most violent persecutor of Stephen, and of the 
 Hellenists who shared his opinions, soon after entered on the new 
 path which Stephen had opened up for Christianity. And there 
 can be little doubt that the new ideas of the Christian conscious- 
 ness which Stephen first propounded were the means of that pro- 
 found impression which changed a Saul into a Paul, and not only 
 so, but from the very moment of his change caused his conversion 
 to Christianity and his call to be the Apostle of the Gentiles to 
 be inseparably identified with each other in his mind, Gal. i. 1 5, 
 1 6. Because in Stephen, whom he had persecuted, he had been 
 confronted with the idea which to a Jew was most of all iatolerable, 
 which set aside the Jewish particularism, and substituted for it a 
 universalism, in which Jew and Gentile stood with equal privileges 
 side by side, he could now in the revulsion of his consciousness 
 adopt without any further mediation the exact opposite of all that 
 he had hitherto clung to with all a true Jew's feelings and in- 
 stincts. If we took the ideas contained in the speech of Stephen 
 as indisputably his own, we might easily establish a still closer 
 connection between Paul and Stephen. If we are not quite 
 entitled to do this, we cannot but think that the line of historical 
 reflection taken in the speech is a very true suggestion of the mode 
 in which a precursor of the Apostle, as Stephen must in any case 
 be considered to have been, would first come in sight of the 
 principles of Pauline Christianity. The chief logical difficulty for 
 the convert from Judaism must have been how the Messiah could 
 be rejected by the very people for whose behoof alone he had been 
 appointed to that office. This could be explained only by the 
 analogy of the fate of the prophets, and by the feeling and character 
 of the people, which it had displayed not only now, but at every 
 age of its past history. The Jews having by their crowning act of 
 disobedience rejected the Messiah, it seemed to follow as a neces- 
 sary consequence that the Messianic salvation was meant for the 
 Gentiles. But it was impossible to stop short here. This result of 
 the history of Jewish religion was a complete and glaring refutation 
 
60 LIFE AND WOBE OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 and reversal of the lofty ideas the Jews entertained of the distinc- 
 tion with which God regarded their race ; and the cause of the 
 failure had to be sought not only in the character of the people, 
 but in the nature of the Old Testament religious iastitutions 
 themselves, in the essential nature of the law, and the impossibihty, 
 subjective, if not also objective, of attaining salvation by the law. 
 If, as the whole story warrants us to assume, Stephen's religious 
 consciousness had already broken loose from the Mosaic Law, he 
 must have felt the necessity of defining in some way the relation 
 the Law and Gospel bore to each other. The historical review of 
 the Old Testament history which this speech puts in his mouth 
 may very likely have formed part of his theory on this head. Aad 
 we are thus perfectly justified in recognising him as the immediate 
 precursor of the Apostle Paul, not only in the more obvious 
 external features of his mission and experience, but in respect of 
 the inner process by which his Christian consciousness was formed^ 
 
 ^ Schneckenburger, " Ueber den Zweck der Apg.," p. 184, says that this speech 
 of Stephen's is in its main drift a preparation for the one with which Luke 
 makes Paul conclude the Acts of the Apostles, xxviii. 25. The state of the case, 
 he says, could not have been put more emphatically than was done by Stephen, 
 that the Jews in general were altogether incapable, from their peculiar national 
 disposition, of receiving the Messianic salvation. The general sentence on 
 the Jewish nation to which the speech of Stephen leads up is thus just 
 what their treatment of Christianity, as represented in the Acts, would seem 
 to warrant, and there is no doubt that such a sweeping verdict could only 
 have been reached at a later time on- a review of the history of the case. 
 We may here also see a further proof of the unhistorical character of the speech. 
 The historical importance which Stephen must have possessed cannot on the other 
 hand be understood except by placing this thought at the root of the collision 
 between him and the Jews. Stephen's historical importance lies in his being the 
 predecessor of Paul. How is it then explained, that in the writings of Paul 
 himself there is not the slightest mention of such a predecessor ? The answer can 
 only be found in the breach with Judaism, which his conversion was ; in the 
 originality of his religious conceptions and the immediateness of the revelation— 
 the directness of the manifestation made to him, Galatians i. 16. His conversion 
 was of such a nature that he would never be led to inijuire into the means by 
 which the transition was brought about. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE CONVEKSION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 On the road to Damascus, whither Saul, breathing out threaten- 
 ings and slaughter, was pursuing the Hellenists who had been 
 scattered abroad by the fierce persecution raging in Jerusalem, that 
 great change occurred by which he was so completely transformed. 
 We possess three accounts of this occurrence which made such a 
 marked turning-point in the life of the Apostle ; the principal one 
 in Acts ix. 1-25, and two others. Acts xxii. 1-12, and xxvi. 9-20. 
 We must at once dissent from the view that the first of these 
 accormts is by the historian, whUe the other two contain the narra- 
 tive of the Apostle himself. We are not justified ia ascribing to 
 the speeches given in the Acts so authentic an origin as this ; they 
 have all passed through the hands of the writer of the Acts — a 
 writer who, as we have seen by his report of the speech of Stephen, 
 knows well how to use his literary licence. But if we grant, as 
 Neander does, that the difference in the three accounts may be due 
 to a want of accurate reporting of the speeches of Paul, this 
 amounts to a virtual surrender of them as authentic speeches of 
 Paul, since it cannot be known how far this want of accuracy goes, 
 nor of any particular detail of the speeches whether it is accurately 
 or inaccurately given. 
 
 A comparison of the three accounts shows several discrepancies. 
 The point most worthy of remark is, that in ix. 7 the companions 
 of Paul are made to hear the voice that spoke to him, but in xxii 
 9 they do not hear it. It is generally thought that this difference 
 
C2 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I, 
 
 is to be accounted for simply by supposing that the companions 
 really did hear a sound — that of the thunder which accompanied 
 the phenomenon, but not the articulate words which were spoken to 
 Paul. But how unsatisfactory this is, when there is nothing said 
 of any other (pavrj except the (poavrj tov Xa\ovvTO<;, whilst it is 
 expressly stated on the one hand that the voice that spoke to Paul 
 was heard by his companions as well, and on the other hand that 
 it was not.^ 
 
 That in the first account, ix. 7, the companions "saw no man," 
 but in the two others, xxii. 9, xxvi. 1 6, they saw " the Light " which 
 shone round about them as well as Paul, is of course (as the appear- 
 ance of the light is mentioned in the first passage as weU as in the 
 second as an objective matter of fact) no contradiction ; nor is the 
 additional statement in the last passage that the voice spoke in the 
 Hebrew tongue to be regarded as such. It is more striking, how- 
 ever, that according to the first accoiiint the companions of Paul 
 remained standing, but according to the third they fell down with 
 Paul, whilst the second has only tlie vague expression e/i^o/Soi 
 eyevovTo. It is also remarkable that the instruction given by Christ 
 in both the two first accounts to Ananias about the vocation of the 
 Apostle, is in the third given by Christ to Paul himself, and this 
 is a difi'erence not to be eas-ily passed over, at least by those who 
 think that in these speeches they possess the Apostle's own authentic 
 narrative of the occurrence. We might say with Olshausen, in 
 order to set all these differences aside' once for all, that we must 
 accept the account as simply as it i& given us ^ that we certainly 
 find variations in the narratives as we often do in the Gospels, but 
 that they only concern unimportant minor points which affect the 
 credibility of the event as a whole so little that they in reality tend 
 to establish it ; but that the account given by Paul himself ought 
 certainly to have the precedence over that of Luke, who relates the 
 occurrence very shortly, and may easily have overlooked some 
 
 ' TTjV (jiavfiv ovK ^Kova-au tov XaXovvros jioi, is said xxii. 9, and on the contrary 
 ix. 7 has aKOVovTis rrjs <pa>vrjs. And this (j)a>vr] is certainly the (fiavfi Xeyovaa 
 
■ Chap. III.] HIS CONVERSION. 63 
 
 small details of an event of which he was not an eye-witness. But 
 all this is in the highest degree arbitrary, and even thus an author 
 whose authority in general stands so high that we give unquestion- 
 ing belief to his accounts of miracles, stands convicted of a serious 
 degree of inaccuracy and confusion ; and if inaccuracy and confu- 
 sion be in other cases a slur upon an author's credit, they cannot be 
 taken in this instance as any proof of trustworthiness, but rather 
 of the reverse. In reality these differences, which would scarcely 
 be cited as an example of how different narrations may yet be easily 
 harmonised, would be considerable enough to indicate a difference 
 in the sources of tradition if it were not that they are found in the 
 accounts of the same author, and if this author had not already 
 given many proofs of the free manner in which he handles his 
 historical materials. 
 
 Instead therefore of taking refuge in the usual manner in a forced 
 and arbitrary reconciliation between accounts which simply con- 
 tradict each other, such as the hearing and the not hearing, the 
 standing upright and the falling down, we confine ourselves to 
 the question. What led the author to relate the event in these 
 different ways ? As for the discrepancy between the expres- 
 sions aicoveiv and ovk uKOi/etv rrjv ^covt^v rov XaXovvroi;, it is 
 very probable that in the passage, ix. 7, the author thought it 
 desirable to ascribe the aKovetv rij? ^wv^? to the companions of the 
 Apostle also, because by so doing he could best show the objectivity 
 of the occurrence, the voice which the Apostle describes as having 
 addressed itself specially to him having been heard by others also. 
 But in both the other passages, especially in the second, in which 
 it is expressly said that the companions did not hear the voice, it 
 may have occurred to the author that as the Apostle himself is 
 speaking, he would perhaps like to represent this voice as one 
 addressed to him alone, belonging especially to him, and not heard 
 by his companions. In furtherance of the aim which is apparent 
 in these two speeches, it is essential that no doubt be felt as to 
 the Apostle being the sole and especial object of this wonderful 
 appearance. But its objectivity, on which no less stress must 
 
64 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 be kid, could be suf&ciently provided for by the statement that the 
 companions of the Apostle suddenly saw a light streaming down 
 from heaven in the clear noon-day (this particular is stated here, 
 as at xxvi. 1 3, as an additional piece of evidence). That the dis- 
 crepancies of which we are treating are to be explained chiefly by 
 such a design on the part of the author seems also to be confirmed 
 by a peculiar remark made in the third passage, that the voice 
 which talked with Paul spoke in the Hebrew tongue. In the first 
 speech, which was delivered before the Jewish people (xxiL), and 
 which we are expressly told was delivered in Hebrew (xxL 40), 
 this remark was not necessary ; but as we must suppose that the 
 third speech, which was delivered before the Eoman Procurator 
 Testus and the Jewish King Agrippa, was spoken in Greek, the 
 remark might here appear to be called for, to save the audience 
 from supposing that Jesus spoke to Paul in the very Greek words 
 he repeated to them, the unlikelihood of which might have dis- 
 credited the whole story to their minds. 
 
 It is also easily seen why in one of these two speeches of the 
 Apostle the addition is made to the words addressed to him by 
 Jesus, (TKKripov aoi 7rpo<; Kevrpa XaKTi^eiv, xxvi 14, as this proverb 
 expresses very happily the idea which the speaker seeks through- 
 out to suggest, viz., that he was unavoidably constrained to take 
 the step which was so distasteful to the Jews, by a power coming 
 from without, which he could not resist. The narrative of the 
 author himself, however, did not require to have the point brought 
 out in this way. The discrepancy between the standing and 
 falling of the companions is, like their hearing and not-hearing, a 
 contradiction which can only be reconciled from the standpoint of 
 the author. The most striking proof of the powerful impres- 
 sion made by the phenomenon was the throwing down of the 
 Apostle and those who accompanied him ; but if in the first passage 
 the author described the impression made on them by the strong 
 word evveoi, this was a sufficient compensation for the falling down; 
 that they should remain standing suited the word evveoi better 
 than that they should faU down, and they must be represented as 
 
Chap. III.] HIS CONVEBSION. 65 
 
 standing because they were to attest that they saw no one from 
 whom the voice could have proceeded. And as for the difference 
 in the words spoken by Jesus in calling the Apostle, it is perfectly 
 evident that events which are kept separate in the first passage are 
 in the third summarised and drawn together ; and this is of no 
 importance, as the words addressed to Ananias by Jesus are in 
 fact only a continuation of his conversation with Paul ; but it is 
 just details like these that show us most distinctly the freedom 
 with which the author used his materials. 
 
 Now we must remember that in these three passages we are 
 merely comparing the different statements of the same author, and 
 we cannot long compare them together without seeing that every 
 detail of the narrative must not be taken as of the same value ; 
 those that are essential must be carefully separated from those 
 of less importance. For the main event we have the Apostle 
 Paul's own testimony in his Epistles. It was the most decided con- 
 viction of the Apostle that Jesus, after he had appeared to the 
 Apostles and the other believers, so at last had visibly manifested 
 himself to him, 1 Cor. xv. 8, ix. 1. But the Apostle does not give 
 any explanation as to the way and manner in which this mani- 
 festation took place. He scarcely mentions or alludes to the event 
 in his Epistles, a reserve which the two long and detailed speeches 
 in the Acts would scarcely lead us to expect. The analogy which 
 he insists on between the former appearances of the risen Jesus 
 and the appearance to him would certainly suggest an outward 
 objective occurrence : yet the expression he uses on the subject, 
 Gal. L 15, evBoKTjcrev 6 0eo? aTroKaXv^jrai. tov viov avrov ev eixol, 
 points to the subjective element of the occurrence in such a way 
 as to prevent our laying too much stress on the outward appear- 
 ance. We are the more justified on this account in trying to iind 
 out what is to be accepted in the narrative of the Acts of the 
 Apostles and what is not. The chief point lies unquestionably 
 in the inquiry, whether this appearance of Jesus is to be con- 
 sidered as an external or an internal occurrence ? The whole repre- 
 sentation in the Acts of the Apostles seems to suggest a material 
 
 VOL. I. E 
 
66 LIFE AND WORK 01 PAUL. [Part! 
 
 appearance; but ib is decisive against this supposition that the 
 companions of the Apostle are asserted to have seen a bright flash 
 of light, but no person. The distinct expression, ix. 7, elcyrrjKeiaav, 
 fitjBeva 6eo)povvTe<;, is here of the more importance, since, as a matter 
 of fact, there is nothing in the three narratives in the Acts of the 
 Apostles to lead to the idea of a material, visible, objective appear- 
 ance of the person of Jesus. Hence even Neander (p. 119, Bohn, 
 p. 87) declares for a spiritual occurrence in the mind of Paul, a 
 spiritual manifestation of Christ to his deeper self- consciousness; 
 and by assuming this he is of opinion that we lose nothing of the 
 real, divine part of the matter, as the external manifestation is only 
 a means, and the material perception can give no greater certainty 
 and reality than an occurrence in the region of the higher self- 
 consciousness. But Neander (p. 122, Bohn, p. 88) feels obliged to 
 return again to the idea of a real, visible appearance, since, according 
 to him, the Apostle (1 Cor. xv. 8) places the appearance of Christ 
 vouchsafed to himself on an equal footing with aU the other appear- 
 ances of the risen Christ ; and this declaration, as he thinks, must 
 have all the greater weight, because from 2 Cor. xii. 1 we see that 
 the Apostle knew perfectly well how to distinguish between a state 
 of ecstasy and a state of ordinary consciousness. As for the latter 
 point, it follows, from the very pertinent reasons adduced by 
 Neander himself (p. 121), that the appearance of Jesus which is 
 here spoken of cannot have been an ecstatic vision, like that 
 referred to in 2 Cor. xii. 1 ; but does it therefore follow that as an 
 occurrence in the region, not of the normal, but of the higher self- 
 consciousness, it can have had nothing in common with an ecstatic 
 vision? This cannot be maintained, and although the Apostle 
 places this appearance of Jesus and the other appearances of the 
 risen Christ in one line, it does not follow, in the first place, that 
 this appearance to him must have been an external one, for an 
 internal appearance would perfectly justify the assertions of a 
 iaipaKevat and o(f>6rjvai ; and secondly, if the parallel were actually 
 to imply an external appearance, the rule which Neander himself 
 lays down (p. 97, Bohn, p. 70) in reference to Cornelius would apply 
 
Chap. III.] BIS CONVERSION. 67 
 
 here ; and Paul, being the only witness for the objective reality of 
 the appearance, could be accepted in evidence only of what he 
 believed he saw. We cannot here get beyond the subjective 
 element, as, according to the express declaration of the author, not 
 one of the companions of the Apostle saw the form of Jesus, — a 
 thiag quite inconceivable in the case of an objective material 
 appearance. However firmly the Apostle may have believed that 
 he saw the form of Jesus actually and, as it were, externally before 
 him, his testimony extends merely to what he believed he saw. 
 Here we have arrived at a point from which the connection of the 
 rest of the narrative may be perceived without difficulty. To 
 the question whether the appearance of Jesus was really an out- 
 ward and visible one, there is allied the further inquiry whether 
 the words which Paul believed he heard from the Jesus who 
 appeared to him were really audible. Had we only the testimony 
 of the first passage on this point, the question would be answered 
 immediately in the affirmative ; but as the author is directly in 
 contradiction to himself on. the subject, our answer must come not 
 from what is said on the point, but from the analogy of the whole. 
 Now, with regard to the analogy, there can be no doubt that just 
 as little as the appearance of Jesus was a- real and outward one, so 
 little could the words which Paul thought he heard have been out- 
 wardly audible. As he believed that he saw Jesus without an 
 outward visible objective form of Jesus being there, so he might 
 believe that he heard words- which were for ]iim only and not for 
 others, that is to say, not outwardly and objectively audible. This 
 connection between seeing and hearing can be very well explained 
 on psychological grounds. If the Apostle was once convinced that 
 Jesus had appeared to him, he must also have- supposed that there 
 was some decided reason for this appearance ; and for what reason 
 should Jesus appear to him, except to present himself to him, the 
 persecutor, as the object of his persecution ? And if the belief in 
 such an appearance of Jesus could not possibly arise in the 
 Apostle's mind until he passed from his former unbelief to a 
 conviction of the higher dignity of Jesus, his belief in that 
 
68 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 appearance must necessarily have brought with it something more, 
 namely, the resolve to become a preacher instead of a persecutor 
 of the Christian cause. 
 
 So considered, what are the words which the Apostle thought 
 that he heard proceeding from the form of Jesus, and which, if the 
 apparition itself was only a spiritual fact, he must have heard 
 from some spiritual voice, — what are they but the necessary explana- 
 tion of the fact itself, and of the idea that was bound up with it? 
 It is impossible to sever the union between words and ideas ; the 
 idea necessarily expresses and clothes itself in words. And here 
 also the connection of one with the other is close and immediate ; 
 of the Seen and the Imagined with the Spoken and the Heard. In 
 what we have now said we have remained entirely within the 
 sphere of the Apostle's consciousness ; but must we not step over 
 the boundary which divides the inner from the outer, the subjec- 
 tive from the objective, when we endeavour to explain what the 
 companions of the Apostle may at least have seen, even if they 
 heard nothing ? If they did not see the person of the being who 
 manifested himself, they are at least reported to have seen the 
 stream of heavenly light by which they and the Apostle were 
 surrounded. The well-known modern hypothesis, so often repeated, 
 that this light was a flash of lightning which suddenly struck the 
 Apostle and laid him and his companions senseless on the ground, 
 is really mere hypothesis ; and as it not only has no foundation in 
 the text, but is also in manifest contradiction with the meaning of 
 the author, we shall make no further mention of it here. All the 
 more, however, is the question forced upon us, whether or not this 
 bright light is to be taken as an objective reality. The narrative 
 clearly means it to be so taken, but it is another question whether 
 this be not the point at which mythic tradition laid its hand upon 
 the celebrated event of the conversion of the Apostle Paul. It 
 must be borne in mind, in order that this appeal to the mythical 
 may not appear as a completely arbitrary proceeding, that the 
 essence of a myth consists in the outward objective expression of 
 what was formerly subjective and contained in the region of 
 
Chap. III.] sjs CONVERSION. 69 
 
 thought. In cases where the transition from the subjective to the 
 objective, from the inner to the outward, is logically necessary and 
 direct, the idea of the mythical can scarcely be brought into play, 
 although this is in truth the point at which the natural province of 
 the myth begins. In this sense, even the necessary transformation 
 already discussed of a direct, inexplicable, sudden impression into 
 distinct ideas, and of the ideas into words, belongs to the province 
 of the myth ; here also there is an inward process which becomes 
 an outward one, a transition from the subjective to the objective, 
 the idea becomes expressed, it clothes itself in words and outward 
 signs, and takes material shape and form. In this case we have 
 a natural and necessary process of the human spirit ; here the 
 mythical appears in its direct, inner connection with the logical. 
 The myth proper appears in a different case, where the transition 
 from the subjective to the objective, from the inner to the outward, 
 has no longer any inner logical necessity, but proceeds from a merely 
 subjective need, and appears only as the accidental and more or 
 less arbitrary investiture, in palpable and material form, of an 
 abstract thought, or of a matter lying beyond the province of the 
 senses. It is from this point of view that we must consider what 
 appeared to the Apostle's companions. If once the fact was firmly 
 established that the ascended, glorified Jesus had appeared to the 
 Apostle Paul on the way to Damascus, tradition could not rest 
 contented with conceiving the event to have transpired only in- 
 wardly, in the higher self-consciousness of the Apostle. The inner 
 phenomenon must in some way become an outward one, if it was 
 to keep its full importance and concrete truth in the traditions of 
 the Church. But that the inner vision, present only to the mind of 
 the Apostle, did not become an outward perception to those who 
 accompanied him, in the visible form of Jesus appearing in his 
 heavenly glory, this is to be explained by the fact that tradition, 
 though transforming the facts as they originally happened, yet has 
 its fixed boundaries which it does not arbitrarily overstep. The 
 truth of the original fact was preserved in the form with which 
 tradition invested the story, where it was stiU held that the 
 
70 LIFE AND WOEK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 appearance of Jesus had not been visible to any one but the 
 Apostle himself. But if He had been actually visible, though it 
 were only to the Apostle, could tradition do other than assume 
 that the heavenly light, without which no divine appearance can 
 be imagined, spread over all those who were near the Apostle at 
 the time ? Jesus could not really have appeared without some 
 outward token of his nearness and presence. The strange bright- 
 ness, siirpassing that of the sun at mid-day, that suddenly shone 
 round the Apostle and his companions, is accordingly nothing but 
 the symbolical and mythical expression of the certainty of the real 
 and immediate presence of the glorified and transfigured Jesus. As 
 soon as the appearance of Jesus was conceived of in this manner, 
 it followed that it must have brought about in all who witnessed it 
 the effects which always resulted from heavenly phenomena of this 
 kind ; its overpowering influence threw them all on the ground, or 
 at least riveted them to the earth in rigid astonishment. 
 
 The occurrences in Damascus form the second part of the 
 miraculous narrative in the Acts of the Apostles. The adherents 
 of the so-called natural mode of explanation have experienced as 
 much difficulty about these as about the principal event itself.' 
 Although the latter is said to have been very satisfactorily accounted 
 for by the lucky hypothesis of a flash of lightning coming down 
 out of the sky, the complicated events in Damascus cannot be ex- 
 plained in so simple and easy a manner. This is the weakest place 
 in the naturalistic series of explanations, and the cold hands of the 
 aged Ananias, the vivid delight of Paul at his appearance, the 
 sudden stepping forth from the dark chamber to the light, and the 
 three days' fasting, are only weak unskilful means of releasing the 
 Apostle from the darkness of the cataract left on his eyes by the 
 lightning flash. But how difficult it is even to bring Ananias and 
 Paul naturally into such mutual relations as, according to the 
 narrative in the Acts of the Apostles, must have existed between 
 them. It may on the other hand be justly asked, Who can beheve 
 that these two visions, so exactly fitting into each other, Paul 
 1 Neander gives no further explanation of the ooourrencea at Damascus. 
 
Chap. III.] HIS CONVEBSION. 71 
 
 learning through one that Ananias was coming to him to restore 
 his sight, and. Ananias receiving through the other the command 
 to go to Paul and help him, came about merely by some lucky 
 chance ? Just as little can these visions be taken as miracles in 
 the ordinary sense. With our author, visions are precisely the 
 means employed to bring persons widely separated and unknown 
 to each other into connection with each other. As in the history 
 of the conversion of Cornelius, he and Peter are drawn together 
 by two visions, so here Ananias and Paul ; only the visions of the 
 two latter are more exactly and directly complementary of each 
 other. As Paul in his vision saw Ananias coming to him, so 
 Ananias in the vision which he had was apprised of the nature of 
 Paul's vision. It was natural to suppose that it was very difficult 
 for Paul, after his arrival at Damascus, to iind an introduction to, 
 or to win the confidence of, the Christians residing there ; and to 
 understand how this came about, it was necessary to supply some 
 great extraordinary preparation, and such a preparation must ap- 
 pear all the more necessary, as Paul, in the state of blindness in 
 which he had been ever since the appearance of the light from 
 Heaven on the way to Damascus, had been quite dependent on the 
 help of others. Who would venture near a man who until now 
 had been known as the bitterest enemy and persecutor of the 
 Christian name ? and how could he himself, a man so blinded and 
 prostrate, commit himself to any unknown visitor that might pro- 
 fess kindly intentions ? Here then Deity must himself step in and 
 complete the work already begun. Ananias accordingly receives, 
 in a divine vision, the command to go to Paul, and to afford him 
 the help he needed, and to Paul himself Ananias is shown in a 
 vision as the man destined to assist him. The charge which 
 Ananias received lies in so close a connection with the miracle he 
 wrought on Paul, that only from the miracle itself do we come to 
 a right understanding of the vision which prepared the way for it. 
 According to the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul had 
 been blinded by the tremendous brightness of the appearance of 
 the Lord. He came to Damascus blind, and remained there for 
 
72 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 several days in that condition until he was released from it by 
 Ananias. But was this blindness an actual one 1 And was his 
 release from it by Ananias an actual miracle ? This question is 
 suggested to us by the narrative itself, in which the close con- 
 nection between the cure of the blindness and the laying on of 
 hands and that which was the aim of the latter operation, namely, 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost, deserves the most special attention. 
 Ananias indeed received in his vision the command to go to Paul 
 and lay his hands on him that he might receive his sight ; and as 
 soon as he had come to Paul and had laid his hands on him, bid- 
 ding him receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost, there 
 fell from his eyes as it had been scales, and he " forthwith saw." 
 Is not then the 7r\r]cr6rjvat ■jrvevfiaro'; aylov, which was wont to 
 follow the laying on of hands, in itself a healing of blindness, an 
 dva^eireiv in a spiritual sense ; and does not the expression, ix. 18, 
 evdea<i aireireaov airo tcov ocpdaXficov avTOV (ocrei XeTrtSe? seem to 
 indicate that they were no real scales, that there was no real blind- 
 ness, and no real cure ? If we remember the condition to which 
 the Apostle must have been reduced by the appearance of the 
 Lord, how can we think of him in any other manner than with a 
 downcast, introspective look, in a moody, preoccupied frame of 
 mind, in deep earnest meditation on the guilt he had incurred by 
 this recent course of action and which now weighed upon him so 
 heavily ? This dark night of his spiritual life was not broken till 
 Christian baptism was administered to him, and with the sense of 
 the forgiveness of sin which it brought, caused light to shine upon 
 him so that he again saw clearly. The narrative itself points to 
 such a state of mind, brooding on itself, closed to all outward im- 
 pressions, entirely occupied with itself and struggling from darkness 
 into light, by showing us Paul, after some days' residence in 
 Damascus, as not only seeing nothing, but eating and drinking 
 nothing, and only after receiving baptism taking food and re- 
 turning to full vitality, ix. 9, 18. But if we look at the condi- 
 tion of the Apostle, not only immediately after this event, but 
 before it, whilst he was still the strenuous Pharisaic zealot, jealous 
 
Chap. III.] HIS CONVERSION. 73 
 
 for the law, and the persecutor of all who turned away from it, how 
 great a contrast does this first state present to the second in which 
 we now find him ? Is he not in the former case a blind man, who 
 has to be cured of his blindness? Grotius has remarked on the 
 words, ix. 8, avewyfj-evaiv Se Ta)v O(p0d\ij,av avTov, ovBeva ejSXeTre, 
 "Ea fuit imago Pauli, qualis antehac fuerat, speciem habens 
 hominis eruditi in lege, quum plane animo caecus esset.'' And on 
 ix. 18, ojcrel XeiriSe<;, "adumbrantes velut illud, de quo agit Paulus, 
 2 Cor. iii. 14." Thus even Grotius remarked that these expressions 
 yield themselves to a figurative interpretation, and are apt and 
 significant when understood of the Apostle's spiritual condition. 
 _ The author himself represents the Apostle as making use of similar 
 figurative expressions. In his speech of chap. xxvi. he puts into 
 his mouth the following words as having been addressed to him by 
 Christ in appointing . him his office : he was sent to the GentUes, 
 he is made to say, avoi^ai o<p0aXfiov<; avTav, tov eiria-Tpeifrai airo 
 (TKOTOVi eit ^(B9, Kai Tr]<; e^ovcria^ tov craTava ewi tov Qeov, tov 
 \a/3eiv auTOv^ a(f>e(ri,v dfiapTcwv, Kai xKrjpov ev rot? ri'^iacT^evoi<;, 
 •n-iaTei Trj et? efjue, ver. 18. May not the conversion of the Apostle 
 itself be described in the same manner as a passage from a state 
 of darkness and blindness to a state of light and vision with clear 
 and open eyes ? Taking all these points into consideration, does 
 it not seem reasonable to consider as tradition what is related 
 in the Acts of the Apostles of the blinding of the Apostle, and the 
 wonderful cure of his blindness by Ananias ? In none of his 
 Epistles does the Apostle himself mention any of these occurrences 
 in his life. The tradition doubtless arose from the expressions 
 which, when properly interpreted, that is not strictly but figura- 
 tively, served to indicate the great change in the inner spiritual 
 life of the Apostle, and the great contrast afforded by the Apostle's 
 earlier and later attitude of mind and religious views. The ordi- 
 nary process took place here, by which myth is formed out of 
 tradition, viz. : that these figurative expressions came to be inter- 
 preted strictly and literally. Spiritual blindness thus became bodily 
 blindness : the looking up in a spiritual sense became the falling 
 
74 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 off of scales which had covered the eyes. Then dates had to be 
 fixed for the two states and for the change. No better opportunity 
 for the blinding could be found than the moment when the Apostle 
 had seen the dazzling appearance of light in which the Lord appeared. 
 If, in order to represent to the fancy what occurred at the moment 
 when the Lord appeared to the Apostle, tradition represented an 
 extraordinary heavenly light as spreading all around, this could 
 not happen according to the usual conditions of such heavenly 
 phenomena, without leaving behind on the person for whom the 
 vision was intended the mark of blindness. And if the condition 
 in which the Apostle was after that appearance and the change 
 which it produced on him, was necessarily a condition of perfect 
 unconsciousness towards the outward world, then everything con- 
 curs to place that blindness which affected the Apostle before he 
 had attained to the clear light of the Christian life, in the period 
 between the appearance of the Lord to him, and the act of his 
 reception into the Christian community. What had been miracu- 
 lously produced must of course be miraculously removed, and the 
 fittest time for the removal was when, after the crisis of the struggle 
 into light was fully past, the Apostle became a new man by his 
 actual reception into the Christian community. But the greater 
 the change in the outward as well as the inward condition of the 
 Apostle, the more fitting did it seem that this should have been 
 effected by a special divine arrangement, and (as is the case also with 
 the conversion of Cornelius) two visions corresponding with each 
 other seemed to be the most likely means to have brought about 
 the change. A special divine communication, such as could 
 only be conveyed through a vision, must in this case appear to 
 be all the more necessary, as without it the distinctive outward 
 act of imparting the Holy Spirit to the Apostle, by the laying on 
 of hands by Ananias, could not have been considered as vahd, 
 Ananias not being an Apostle. All these details of the fully 
 formed tradition fit very closely into each other, nor is their con- 
 nection with each other during the process of the formation of the 
 tradition less satisfactory, when we have secured one point from 
 
Chap. III.] SIS CONVERSION. 75 
 
 which to trace it. If we are right in assuming that the blindness 
 of the Apostle was no real physical blindness, then the miracle of 
 healing is no longer needed ; and if Ananias was not sent to Paul 
 for this purpose (for itwas to this end chiefly that he was desired to go, 
 according to Acts ix. 17, o Kvpt,o<; airiaraXKe fie, oTrto? dva^Xeyjrrji), 
 the statement also falls to the ground that Ananias received this 
 charge in a divinely sent vision; and the whole matter takes a 
 completely different complexion from that given to it in the Acts 
 of the Apostles. It therefore remains doubtful whether Ananias 
 really came into such close relations with the Apostle Paul during 
 this critical period of his life — whether. his name did not get mixed 
 up in the account of the ■ conversion .in some accidental manner. 
 In the speech of the Apostle delivered before the Jewish people, 
 Ananias is described as an dv-rjp evae^ri^ Kara tov vofiov, fiaprv- 
 pov/j,evo<; vtto irdvTav twv KaroiKovvTcov 'lovBaimv, xxii. 12. How 
 easy it is to imagine that there was a particular interest at work 
 in thus representing the Apostle Paul as from the beginning in 
 close connection with a man who stood in such good repute with 
 the Judaizing party, which was always so suspicious of the Apostle. 
 A historical and critical view of the narrative of the con- 
 version of Paul, as given in the Acts of the Apostles, does not 
 allow us to consider it. as simply miraculous ; and if we look at it 
 from a psychological ipoint of view, the supposition of a miracle 
 appears neither necessary, nor indeed admissible. Who can 
 venture to say that such a change in the religious and spiritual 
 life of the Apostle may not have been developed from his inner 
 life in a simply natural manner 1 or who will venture to make the 
 assertion that even the most sudden transition from one extreme 
 to another lies outside the pale of psychological possibility ? or 
 that if such a phenomenon must be held as contrary to nature, 
 that which is contrary to nature could be brought about by a 
 miracle ? If there be any sphere in which the notion of miracle 
 must be discarded, it is the psychological sphere, and especially 
 in cases in which miracle would be nothing but a violent inter- 
 ruption of the natural development of the man's inward spiritual 
 
76 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 life. Hence Neander, although in examining and accounting for 
 this occurrence he makes the miracle the ultimately determining 
 factor, still in no way allows a magic influence to have been in 
 operation on Paul, whereby he was carried away and changed 
 against his will. There must, Neander holds, have been some 
 point of application in his inner life, without which the most essen- 
 tial element of all, the inner revelation of Christ to his highest 
 self-consciousness would not have been possible, without which no 
 outward impression could have proved the means to introduce that 
 revelation to his mind, without which any outward impression, 
 however strong, would have been merely transitory. But if once 
 the theory of an inward point of connection be allowed, is it any- 
 thing else but an admission of the principle, by which the whole 
 change is to be referred to natural causes ? What remains, there- 
 fore, is simply a question for historical criticism to investigate ; 
 whether what in itself is possible did, in accordance with the state- 
 ments before us, actually occur without the interposition of a miracle 
 properly so called ? So clear and simple does this seem that we 
 can only wonder how even the modern commentators on the Acts 
 of the Apostles here embrace the theory of miracle in its most 
 exaggerated form. Proceeding on the words, xxvi. 14, aKkqpov 
 croi Trpo? KevTpa "KaKTi^eiv,^ Olshausen brings in, quite mal d propos, 
 the Augustinian doctrine of " gratia' irresistibilis," only with this 
 difference, that, by the assertion that in this appearance of our 
 
 1 According to Olshausen, the meaning of these words can be only as follows :— 
 " Thy striving against the overpowering strength of grace helps thee not. Thou 
 nmst yield to it, in spite of all." This meaning can only be forced from the 
 words by an interpreter biassed in favour of the Augustinian dogmas. It is 
 certainly most natural to take the words not as referring to the subjective, but 
 to the objective, uselessness of striviiig. Their meaning therefore would be: 
 " Thou persecutest me in the belief that I am not the true Messiah, but as thou 
 must be now convinced that I am the true Messiah, how can thy undertaking 
 be anything but vain, and redounding to thy own destruction ? " This reading is 
 illustrated and confirmed by the parallel in the speech of Gamaliel, v. 39, ov &iva(r6e 
 KaTaXCaat airo, ^ijTrore Kal fifo^xaxoi fvpeBiiTf. "You will not effect anything 
 by your reaction ; the end will show on the contrary that you will draw on your- 
 selves the worst consequences, for only the worst is to be expected from a direct 
 opposition to God." 
 
Chap. III. J HIS CONVERSION. 77 
 
 Lord the power of giuce was irresistible, it is by no means sought 
 to deny that there may have been times in the subsequent life of 
 Paul when it was possible for him- to forfeit by unfaithfulness the 
 grace vouchsafed to him. This is the very worst modification of 
 this doctrine of irresistible grace, as by it two completely different 
 standpoints become confused with each other, — the ordinary theory 
 of free-will, and its opposite, that of absolute dependence. The 
 consequence, or rather the cause, of this illogical blending of 
 heterogeneous theories is a theory of miracle which thoroughly 
 destroys the continuity of the spiritual life, the arbitrary assertion 
 that there are circumstances in the life of man in which (as Neander 
 well puts it) " the individual is carried away and transformed by 
 magic influence against his own will." In this view of the conver- 
 sion of the Apostle Paul, miracle is of course assigned its full right, 
 but this is the only advantage ; and what is believed to be gained by 
 it on one hand, in favour of the glorification of divine grace, is lost 
 on the other by the sacrifice of the moral dignity of the Apostle. 
 
 The event of the conversion and calling of the Apostle must 
 have been of the greatest importance to the author of the Acts in 
 furthering his apologetic aim. Not only, therefore, is it related at 
 length in chapter ix., it is also repeated with equal length and 
 detail in the two speeches which are put into the mouth of the 
 Apostle Paul himself, chapters xxii. and xxvi. We see from the 
 epistles of the Apostle how his enemies always reproached him with 
 not having been, as the other Apostles, a disciple of Jesus, and for 
 not having been called to be an Apostle by Jesus himself during 
 his earthly life. Against such a reproach and such an attack on 
 the apostolic authority of Paul, it was necessary to insist upon a 
 fact by which he was connected with Jesus by a relation not less 
 direct than that which bound the rest of the Apostles to him. The 
 Apostle himself maintains with the most decided emphasis that 
 he also had seen Christ the Lord, 1 Cor. ix. 1, that Jesus had 
 manifested himself to him as well as to the other Apostles ; even if 
 after the others, still really and truly, 1 Cor. xv. 8. And not 
 only once did this happen, but by repeated oTrracr/a? koX a-rroKa- 
 
78 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part I, 
 
 Xvi/ret9 Tov Kvplov, he claims for himself direct communion with 
 the Lord : 2 Cor. xii. 1. But there still remained the great and 
 essential difference between his calling and that of the other 
 Apostles, that the reality of the former depended on a momentary 
 appearance which he asserted to have taken place — on a vision — 
 an opafia, which could be known as real only in the sphere of his 
 own subjective consciousness, and which therefore lay open to 
 the suspicion that it might be the result of self-deception. 
 And as together with his calling to the office of an Apostle he 
 claimed to have received also a distinct commission to proclaim 
 the Gospel to the Gentiles, so the whole question as to the par- 
 ticipation of the Gentiles in the Messianic Salvation, which was a 
 cause of so bitter dispute between the Apostle and the Jewish 
 Christians, rests also on the truth and reality of the visionary 
 appearance by which the Apostle believed himself to have been 
 called. In proportion to the difficulty of this question of the 
 apostolic authority would be the anxiety of a writer who has so 
 decided an apologetic tendency as the author of the Acts to procure 
 for his Apostle as strong a case as possible. The authority of Paul, 
 according to the nature of the circumstances under which the Acts 
 of the Apostles was composed, could be legitimized in no better 
 manner than by the authority of Peter. If it could be shown as 
 a precedent that Peter also saw a divinely sent vision in which he 
 received an important charge, and if that charge concerned a no less 
 weighty matter than the adoption of the Gentiles into the Messianic 
 kingdom, so that the conversion of the Gentiles had been already 
 begun by him, what objection could be taken to Paul's being 
 called to the office of an Apostle among the Gentiles ? According 
 to the whole plan and economy of the Acts of the Apostles, it 
 cannot surprise us that we really do find in it such a legitimation 
 of the Apostle. It is contained in the account of the conversion 
 of Cornelius, which the author of the Acts, chapters x. and xi., 
 apparently places purposely between the conversion of the Apostle, 
 chapter ix., and the actual commencement of his apostolic office 
 among the Gentiles, xi. 25. The detailed and circumstantial 
 
Chap. III.] HIS CONVERSION. 79 
 
 manner in which this is related indicates how much importance 
 the author attaches to it. If everything had taken place as it is 
 here related, and as it is commonly believed to have done, there 
 would be no need of saying anything about an especial apologetic 
 aim of the author. But how is it possible to take such a series of 
 miraculous transactions, all so artfully linked together, as a piece of 
 actual history ? If we remember that this is not a question of 
 miraculous events occurring merely in the external world, but of 
 influences from the higher world acting directly on the religious 
 thought and the whole mental position of the persons concerned, 
 so as to produce resolutions and opinions which could not have 
 been reached at least for long in the ordinary way of religious and 
 spiritual development, we find we cannot credit the account of 
 such direct operations of a higher causality in the sphere of the 
 spiritual life. The persons concerned would be passive organs for 
 the proclamation of ideas which, according to the divine plan, were 
 to be introduced to the world as a purely supernatural revelation. 
 We must notice how little the persons here treated of betray any 
 clear consciousness, or even any suspicion, of the results which 
 these occurrences were meant to bring about. Cornelius indeed 
 received instructions to summon Peter to come to him, but he did 
 not know what end was to be answered by his coming, x. 33. 
 Peter followed the summons sent to him without understanding 
 what it meant, x. 21. In deference to the divine command con- 
 taiued in the vision, he suppressed the opinions which he had 
 hitherto held regarding the relation of the Jews to the Gentiles 
 (28), but he understood so little of the real meaning and aim of 
 that command that the light flashed upon him for the first time 
 through the surprising discovery of the exact correspondence of the 
 two visions with each other. It was not of his own free conviction 
 and decision that he determined on his course of action, but 
 through the overpowering impression of miraculous events which 
 burst upon him suddenly and unforeseen, and by which alone the 
 destined result was obtained. Obviously Peter serves here as the 
 mere organ of a higher agency, and we see clearly enough how 
 
80 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 external the relation was in which the religious ideas and convic- 
 tions here introduced stood to his religious consciousness and the 
 stage of religious development which he had reached. 
 
 The entire series of these events is wanting in historical con- 
 nection ; there is nothing to lead up to it in the previous history : 
 it has no result at all commensurate with its greatness and seeming 
 importance. The Church at Jerusalem indeed allowed its douhts 
 to be hushed by the assurances of Peter ; but how little these 
 doubts were really removed, the narrative in chapter xv. shows 
 us ; and Peter himself, when obliged here to speak on the subject, 
 mentions those events as a thing long out of date, xv. 7 (a<^' r^^epm 
 ap')(a,iwv, etc.), about which nothing had been thought in the 
 interval, and which now for the first time required to be re- 
 membered and considered. With what aim did all this happen, 
 if it harmonised so little with the time and with the stage of 
 development then attained by Peter? was it merely to furnish 
 him later on with a support for his religious consciousness, at a 
 time at which he could not any longer need such a support ? Or 
 must we think it all took place for the sake of Cornelius ? How 
 passive he himself is, however, in all the events that befall him ! 
 and how little does he appear to be the true object of aU those 
 wonders ! The miracle is thus without any adequate motive ; in- 
 deed, we may say more : that so studied and complicated a series of 
 miraculous occurrences has but little in common with the miracu- 
 lous character of the Gospel history. Such a narrative cannot be 
 held, when we consider its essential character, to be even a mythical 
 tradition. It is carefully studied throughout ; the details are con- 
 nected with each other as a whole in a way which only careful and 
 apt manipulation and combination could secure ; one vision corre- 
 sponds to the other, and the effect to be produced by each happens at 
 a certain moment and in a certain manner, so as to fit in with the 
 complete and rounded whole. For this reason also the remark with 
 which Neander prefaces his discussion of the passage, " that we are 
 not justified in assuming that Cornelius was able to separate clearly 
 the objective and actual from the subjective in his apprehension 
 
Chap. III.] BIS CONVERSION. 81 
 
 of that which appeared before him as an object of experience and 
 cognition," is completely purposeless and useless ; for we cannot 
 conceive how anything in this series of details could be different 
 from what it is called, or could be imagined to proceed from hallu- 
 cination. If one of these details is put out of its place, or changed, 
 the whole becomes disarranged and confused, and loses coherence 
 and connection. Such combination and coherence as are here 
 presented are foreign to a myth. Such a narrative cannot be 
 looked upon as the casual product of mythical tradition, but as a 
 free composition, originating in a certain design. From this point 
 of view, the two visions which are so essential in the matter must 
 be held to be the symbolical form selected by the writer to set 
 forth his idea, as in the literature of the earliest Christian times 
 visions frequently occur as mere symbolical and poetical media for 
 the idea the Avriter wishes to convey. The chief idea which is to 
 be enforced here is so prominent that we can scarcely avoid seeing 
 that the persons and events which are placed before us are only 
 meant to illustrate the idea of the whole, and bring it into visible 
 form. As soon, therefore, as the action used for this purpose is 
 sufiiciently developed, the idea is at once released from the material 
 husk which enveloped it; and now the fuU consciousness has 
 dawned upon Peter of what the author makes him utter as the 
 ruling idea of the whole, x. 34, that " there is no respect of persons 
 with God ; but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh 
 righteousness is accepted with him." These woids, as the recent 
 commentators rightly remark, can only be taken, when we consider 
 the connection in which they stand, as asserting, in opposition to 
 the Jewish exclusiveness, that God receives into the Messianic 
 kingdom those who believe in Jesus, not with any regard to 
 whether or not they are descended from a special theocratic nation, 
 but looking only to the moral worth and capacity of each separate 
 individual. The speech of Peter immediately following seeks to 
 remove any idea of exclusiveness from the labours of Jesus. The 
 idea that is here insisted on could not, however, have been set forth 
 more expressively and vividly than by the representation of the 
 
 VOL. I. F 
 
82 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 Holy Ghost coming before the water, x. 44. How evidently was 
 it thus shown that the Gentiles were not to be excluded from the 
 reception of the Holy Spirit as the principle of Christian conscious- 
 ness, how clearly is the conclusion drawn that the outward, the 
 formula of admission, is not to be refused, when the inward, the 
 desire of and fitness for the Holy Spirit, is present, this being the 
 main point and all else merely accessory. Peter accordingly 
 insists again and again on this idea as the outcome of the whole 
 proceeding (x. 47, xi. 16, 17), that as the Gentiles had received the 
 gift of the Holy Spirit in the same way as they, the bom Jews, its 
 reception and operation being attested by the same outward mani- 
 festations as those at the feast of Pentecost, namely, the \akuv 
 yXcoaaai,'; and the fiejaXvveiv rov &eov (x. 46), there could benodis- 
 tinction between Jew and Gentile with regard to the Messianic king- 
 dom. Prom this it followed as a thing of course that with respect 
 to the adoption of the Gentiles into the community of the followers 
 of Jesus as the Messiah, nothing could be demanded which would 
 involve, as circumcision would have done, that in order to become 
 Christians they must first become Jews. As the whole matter is 
 embodied in visions, and visions tend to the figurative and sym- 
 bolical, this thought also had to be presented in a symbolical form. 
 The distinction between clean and unclean in the relation between 
 Jews and Gentiles, is founded specially on the Mosaic laws of 
 food, by which the Jews were forbidden to taste the flesh of certain 
 animals which were held to be unclean. The Gentiles, to whom 
 those kinds of food were not forbidden, became for that very reason 
 unclean to the Jews, who had to be on their guard against defile- 
 ment in their intercourse with the Gentiles when this involved 
 eating and drinking together. The idea that the difference hither- 
 to subsisting between Jews and Gentiles as the clean and the 
 unclean was no longer to be upheld, is very strikingly exhibited ^ 
 by the figure of a vessel in which clean and unclean animals 
 were contained promiscuously, and commanded to be used as food 
 without any distinction. The sharp hunger which Peter had 
 experienced just before the vision, is thus connected very closely 
 
Chap. III.] SIS CONVERSION. 83 
 
 with the aim and purpose of the vision, and is meant to signify how 
 the prohibition against eating certain beasts which were destined 
 for the food of man, and serve his wants as well as the rest, must 
 have appeared to him as an unnatural restriction. The removal of 
 the distinction between clean and unclean was expressed also by 
 the symbolical vessel which in the first place presented no distinction 
 between clean and unclean beasts, and in the second place was let 
 down with all its contents from heaven. As the difference between 
 clean and unclean with regard to the animal world rested on a 
 certain dualistic view of the world, on the idea of a clean and un- 
 clean creation, so also with regard to the relations of Jew and Gentile, 
 the wall of partition which, according to old custom and the prevail- 
 ing view, existed between them could be removed in no better way 
 than by the introduction of the thought that God was the God of the 
 Gentiles as well as of the Jews. As from the divine standpoint there 
 can be no unclean creation, and no man is to be considered " common 
 or unclean" (x. 28, compare 15), so Jesus, as the Messiah, is the 
 common Lord of all in the peace of his Gospel, iravTcov Kvpwi 
 (36), ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead (x. 42). 
 The idea which all the details serve to enforce is a clear and 
 definite one enough ; and after what has been said it is unnecessary 
 to dwell upon the circumstance that it is Peter in whose mind the 
 idea first arises and is acknowledged to be true. There is another 
 point closely connected with this, however, which we have still to 
 notice, namely, the author's evident desire to show that the idea 
 thus brought forward by Peter obtained the assent of the Church 
 of Jerusalem. He expressly mentians the opposition which Peter's 
 act of imparting the Gospel to the uncircumcised and unclean, met 
 with from the Church at Jerusalem, and makes Peter relate circum- 
 stantially the whole course of the affair in his own vindication. 
 The author would not have allowed himself this repetition if he 
 had not attached great weight at this point of his narrative to the 
 impression which the affair made on the Church at Jerusalem. 
 Accordingly after hearing this vindication, the Church at Jerusalem 
 expressed itself content with what was done, and glorified God in 
 
84 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 that he had extended his salvation to the Gentiles (xi. 1-18). 
 The behaviour that the members of the Church exhibited in the 
 sequel shows plainly enough that they cannot have taken up this 
 attitude then. We cannot understand, in the first place, how Peter 
 succeeded so easily in his vindication of a step calculated to give 
 such grave offence. He is said to have done so by appealing to the 
 fact that before he had ended his speech, e-rriireae to irvevfia to 
 ayiov eir avTovi, cocnrep Kai, e(f) rj/ia.'; ev apyTj, xi. 15. This refers 
 to the feast of Pentecost and the miraculous '^'Xaxrcrai'i \a\tlv 
 which then took place. So undeniable and public a miracle was 
 of course better calculated tlian anything else could have been to 
 silence the doubts of the Church. But if the miracle of the 'KaXeiv 
 yXcocra-ai^ be taken in the case of Cornelius and those baptised 
 with him, as well as in the previous case, to have consisted (as 
 Neander states, page 105.) in their feeling themselves impelled to 
 give vent to their feelings in impassioned praises of God, who in so 
 miraculous a manner had led them to salvation, would even this 
 appear to the Church at Jerusalem to be a sufficient vindication? 
 Shall we, in order to make this vindication appear more substantial 
 and more satisfactory, retract what we have seen to be a well- 
 founded result of criticism with regard to the XaXeiv ykcoa-ffaKl. 
 Certainly not ; it simply follows that this vindication before the 
 Church at Jerusalem, and a fortiori the circumstances which 
 occasioned it, cannot be held to have occurred as the letter of 
 the narrative would have us believe. 
 
 However little such a narrative can lay claim to historical 
 credibility, it suits very well the apologetic tendency with which 
 the Acts of the Apostles is written. However we may decide on 
 the traditional element which lies at the root of the history of the 
 conversion of Cornelius, its adoption into the narrative, and the 
 place assigned to it there, can only be accounted for by the apolo- 
 getic interest of the author of the Acts of the Apostles. Paul 
 must be represented as entering on his apostolic work among the 
 Gentiles under the shield of the Apostle Peter, who himself con- 
 verted the first Gentile ; and the heavenly appearance on which 
 
Chap. III.] HIS CONVERSIOJfJ . 85 
 
 alone Paul grounds the proof of his apostolic calling is legitimised 
 in the most authentic manner by a similar vision sent to . the 
 Apostle Peter. We can well imagine how important this must 
 have been to the writer in the pursuit of his apologetic aims, if we 
 consider to what attacks the Apostle Paul was exposed, both at the 
 commencement of his career and long afterwards from the Jewish- 
 Christian party, on account of the peculiar nature of his call. In 
 the pseudo-Clementine Homilies the principle is enunciated, with 
 evident reference to the Apostle Paul, that those revelations only 
 should be considered true and trustworthy which are attested by 
 outward communication and instruction, and not merely by appear- 
 ances and visions. This is one of the chief subjects of controversy 
 between the persons who are represented as conversing in these 
 Homilies ; and the arguments adduced on each side are of great 
 use in making us see clearly the importance this matter must 
 have had to the Apostle and his party. " Thou hast boasted," 
 objected Simon Magus to the Apostle Peter (Homily xvii. 13), 
 " that thou hast entirely understood thy Teacher (the true prophet 
 Christ) because thou hast personally seen him present, and hast 
 listened to him, and that it would be impossible for any other man 
 to have the like certainty by means of any appearance or vision 
 {opdfiaTi Tj oTTTaala). Now, that this is untrue, I will show thee. 
 He who clearly hears what another says is not fully convinced by 
 what is said. For he must think in his mind, ' Does he not lie, 
 being to all appearance a mere man ? ' But a vision, when it is 
 seen, affords to him who sees it the conviction that it is divine." 
 To this Peter replies, " Thou maintainest that more caji be learnt 
 through a vision than through a real operating presence (rj jrapa tj}? 
 evepiyetai). On this account thou thinkest that thou art better in- 
 formed about Jesus than I am. But the prophet deserves all belief, 
 as we know him well beforehand that he is true, and he gives, as the 
 learner wishes, an answer to questions asked him. But he who 
 believes a vision, an appearance, or a dream, has no security, and 
 knows not whom he believes ; for he may be deceived by an evil 
 demon, or a deceitful spirit, into believing what is not the case, and 
 
86 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 if he asks who it is that appears,^ it can answer what it will. It 
 stays as long as it pleases, and vanishes like a sudden flash of 
 light, without giving the desired information to the inquirer. In 
 a dream no one can ask what he desires to know, since the mind • 
 of the sleeper is not in his own power. For this very reason we 
 ask many things we want to know in our dreams, or without ask- 
 ing learn what is of no interest to us, and when we awake we are 
 discontented because we have neither heard nor made due inquiry 
 about what we wanted to know." The Magus rejoins that even if 
 belief is not to be conceded to all visions, still those visions and 
 dreams which are sent by God cannot be false ; that only the 
 righteous can see a true vision, not the wicked ; Peter answers 
 that he cannot agree to this ; pursuing his argument he says, 
 " I know that many idolaters, carnal-minded men given over to all 
 sorts of sins, see visions and true dreams, and some also have seen 
 demoniacal appearances. I maintain that mortal eye cannot see the 
 incorporeal form of the Father or of the Son, because they shine in 
 purest light. It is therefore not out of jealousy that God does not 
 aUow himself to be seen by men who are fettered by their fleshly 
 nature. For who can see the incorporeal form even of an angel, 
 much more of the Son ? But if any one sees a vision {otttcutm}, 
 he must remember that it may proceed from an evil demon : and 
 that ungodly persons see visions and true dreams is certain, and I 
 can prove this from the Scriptures." Then are adduced the instances 
 of Abimelech, Genesis xx. ; of Pharaoh, xli. ; of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 Daniel iii. 5. " AU these were ungodly persons, and yet saw sights, 
 and visions, and true dreams. It results from this that a man who 
 sees visions, dreams, and appearances, need not be concluded to be 
 necessarily a pious man. For the truth springs out of the pure 
 mind indwelling in the pious man ; it is not sought in dreams, but 
 is bestowed on good men with consciousness and judgment. Tbus 
 the Son was revealed to me by the Father ; I therefore know what 
 is the meaning of the revelation (r/? BvvafiK aTroKoXvyfrem, *•«■ 
 what the essence of it is) from my own experience. For as soon 
 
 1 As Paul asks, Acts ix. 5, tIs el, Kiptc ; 
 
Chap. III.J HIS CONVERSION: 87 
 
 as the Lord questioned me (Matthew xvi. 14), something rose ia 
 my heart, and I myself knew not what had happened to me, for I 
 said, 'Thou art the Son of the living God.' He who on this 
 occasion called me blessed, first told me that it was the Father who 
 had revealed this to me. From that time I knew what revelation 
 is : to become aware of a thing without outward instruction, with- 
 out visions and dreams ; and that is the case, for in the truth which 
 God implanteth in us is contained the seed of all truth. This is 
 either concealed from or revealed to us by the hand of God, for 
 God acts to every man according as he sees his deserts to be. To 
 receive communications from without by dreams and visions is not 
 according to the nature of revelation, but is a token of divine wrath 
 — for it is written in the Law that God being wroth with Moses 
 and Aaron, said (ISTumbers xii. 6), ' If there be a prophet among 
 you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and 
 will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, for 
 with him will I speak visibly (directly, ev etSet), as a man speaketh 
 to a friend.' Thou seest how visions and dreams are tokens of wrath. 
 But what is imparted to a friend goes from mouth to mouth direct, 
 and not through figures and dreams and sights, which he uses in 
 communicating with an enemy : so although our Jesus may also 
 have appeared to thee, manifested himself to thee, and spoken to 
 thee, he did so in wrath, as to an adversary, and for that reason he 
 employed apparitions, and dreams, and other outward revelations. 
 But can a man be instructed and ordained for the office of Teacher by 
 means of a vision ? If thou sayest this is quite possible, then I say, 
 "Why did the Teacher go about familiarly for a whole year with men 
 not dreaming, but awake ; and how can these believe that he revealed 
 himself to thee ? How can he have appeared to thee, who art not 
 even in agreement with his doctrine ? If thou really didst become 
 an Apostle by his appearing to thee and instructing thee, if only for 
 one hour, then repeat his sayings, declare what he said and did, love 
 his Apostles, and dispute not with me who was with him ; for thou 
 hast striven against me as an adversary,— against me, the strong rock, 
 the corner pillar of the Church. If thou hadst not been an adversary, 
 
88 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [VartI. 
 
 thou wouldest not have so vilified and abused me and my preaching 
 that men would not believe what I myself heard from the Lord 
 when I was with him, as thou;,rh I were worthy of condemnation, 
 when I was really worthy of praise. Yea, verily, when thou callest 
 me worthy of condemnation, Gal. ii. 11, thou accusest God who 
 revealed Christ to me, thou attackest him who called me blessed 
 for this revelation. If thou wishest in deed and truth to become 
 a fellow- worker in the cause of truth, then learn from us as we 
 have leamt from him, and if thou hast become a disciple of the 
 truth, be a fellow-worker with us." 
 
 Such was the opinion prevailing on the Jewish-Christian side at 
 the time the pseudo-Clementine Homilies were composed, with 
 regard to the apostolic calling of Paul ; and that we are not here 
 exhibiting a mere extreme heretical opinion of a later date is 
 testified by the Epistles of the Apostle himself, in which we find 
 the same view. This opinion must indeed have been the general 
 one of the hostile Jewish-Christian party. It may be that at the 
 time of the author of these Homilies a section of the Jewish-Chris- 
 tians had already come to hold a less extreme view on the subject, 
 and that Paul was allowed to be an Apostle, though still in a 
 subordinate position to Peter, in which he had no advantage over 
 Peter, and had to share with him the glory of being the Apostle to 
 the Gentiles. But is not this the result of the efforts by which 
 the Pauline party generally, and the author of the Acts of the 
 Apostles especially, had striven to procure for Paul the acknow- 
 ledgment of his apostolic dignity, if only to this limited extent? 
 This could not have been brought about without concessions and 
 accommodations of various kinds on the side of the Pauline party. 
 The primacy of Peter, first of all, together with the principle on 
 which it was based, must have been conceded to the Petrine party. 
 The author of the Acts of the Apostles must have made up his 
 mind to accept and embody in his naiTative the criterion of the 
 apostolic calling, which the Homilies present as the only one. On 
 the election of the Apostle Matthias in the place of the traitor, 
 Peter enunciates the principle.i. 21, 22, Bel ot>v tS,v trwekddvTfov ^^Iv 
 
Chap. III.] BIS CONVERSION. 89 
 
 avopwv ev iravTi xpova ev a elcrrjXOe koI e^rjXOev ecf>' r]fjM<; 6 Kvpia 
 Irjarov;, ap^a/j,evo<; airo tov ^awTicrfiaToi; 'Iwdvvov eo)? t^? rj/j,€pa<; 
 7J? aveXrjipdrj a^' rjfiav, fiapTvpa Trj<; ava(TTdaea><; avrov yeveaffai 
 (Tvv Tj/uv eva tovtcov. In the same sense, Peter says in his speech 
 with regard to the conversion of Cornelius, x. 41, that they, the 
 Apostles, are the /xaprvpe? 7rpoKe')(€ipoTovr]fievoi inro tov Qeov, o'iTive'; 
 (rvve^a'yofjbev koc aweirionev avrai (the following words, /^era to 
 avaarrjvai avrov e/c veKpwv, are, as De Wette also says, obviously 
 not to be taken with the words directly preceding, but with efi<f>av>] 
 •yeveaOai, 40). It cannot be denied that a certain design which 
 betrays a special reason is evident in the express enunciation and 
 enforcement of the principle that the witnesses of the risen Jesus 
 could be none but those who through communion with him during 
 his lifetime, through the constant coming and going along with the 
 disciples, and eating and drinking with him, were specially destined 
 by him for this purpose. This, indeed, seems to be recognised by 
 the author of the Acts of the Apostles himself as a criterion of the 
 apostolic calling, which might have been made use of against his 
 Apostle. But the more he yields in a point like this to the 
 Jewish- Christian party, the more does he expect from that side a 
 willingness to make its Apostle do justice to his ; and, provided 
 only that the exclusive primacy were assured to the Apostle Peter, 
 he seems to ask from the Jewish-Christians the concession that 
 there might exist another mode of being called to the apostolic 
 mission, namely, through apparitions and visions, especially as the 
 Apostle Peter himself had, by special divine appointment, and in 
 furtherance of the important aim of the conversion of the Gentiles, 
 been the recipient of similar visitations. 
 
CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 THE FIEST MISSIONAEY JOUENEY OF THE APOSTLE. — ACTS XHL XIT. 
 
 Between the conversion of the Apostle and his actual entrance 
 into the sphere of his apostolic work, there intervenes a period 
 which we cannot discuss tiU we reach a later stage of this work, 
 as the account of it in the Acts of the Apostles varies considerably 
 from the Apostle's own statement. Generally speaking, however, 
 we have to think of this as the period of his life in which he 
 developed the powerful impression which he had received from his 
 sudden conversion, into that unity of religious conviction which 
 became afterwards the firm foundation of his apostolic labours. 
 As there is nothing known of his outward actions during this 
 interval, which he himself says (Gal. L 18) lasted several years, it 
 is all the more likely that the time was spent in self-contemplation, 
 his introverted spirit growing familiar with his newly-won Christian 
 consciousness. When we consider his whole individuality, as 
 well as the manner of his conversion, which was so sudden and 
 thorough a transformation of his inward man, we cannot but think 
 that he did not pass through many various intermediate stages, but 
 as soon as he was once settled and fixed in his own mind, became at 
 once what we see him to have been afterwards. So soon, as he him- 
 self says (Gal. i. 16), as God had been pleased to reveal his Son in 
 him, that he might preach his Gospel among the heathen, a new 
 world rose upon his consciousness, and his own characteristic in- 
 dependence preserved him from such dependence on others as would 
 have prevented his own individuality from having full scope. This 
 
Chap. IV.] HIS FIRST MISSIONABY JOURNEY. 91 
 
 much is certain, that though he grounded his whole apostolic work 
 and influence entirely on the directness of his apostolic call, and as 
 all that he was he wished to be only through Christ, who had been 
 thus revealed to him, yet he did not neglect to institute inquiries 
 into the history of the life of Christ. He who could speak so 
 definitely and in such detail about matters of fact in the Gospel 
 history as the Apostle does, 1 Cor. xi. 23, etc., xv. 8, could not have 
 been unacquainted with the rest of its chief incidents. 
 
 The Apostle of the Gentiles first entered on his wide and suc- 
 cessful career in Antioch, where before his coming a new metro- 
 polis of the Christian world had begun to arise, in consequence of 
 the events already mentioned, which had so great importance in 
 the history of the development of Christianity.-^ From thence, 
 with Barnabas, his greatest friend, he undertook his first missionary 
 journey, which was directed to Cyprus, and then to the countries 
 of Asia Minor, PamphyKa, Pisidia, Lycaonia, and their cities, 
 Perga, Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. The discourses of the 
 two Apostles are said to have been accompanied by miracles, and 
 
 ^ As an indication of the important position whidi Antiooli had assumed in tlie 
 affairs of Christianity, we may take the remark in xi. 26, that the disciples were 
 called Christians first in Antioch. This name must have been commonly current 
 in the general public at the time when the Acts was written ; this is the proper 
 meaning of ^prjiiari^eiv. The name Xpitmavol occurs only in two other passages 
 in the New Testament, Acts xxvi. 28, 1 Peter iv. 16, and in both of these 
 passages it appears as a term used by the opponents of Christianity, as it was 
 also used afterwards by the wi-iters of the second century ; but the opponents 
 who gave the name must have been Gentiles, as Jews would not have so used the 
 the sacred name of Xptaros. The Gentile origin of the name causes the author 
 to connect it with the city of Antioch, which was the first GentUe site of Chris- 
 tianity. But whether it originated in Antioch is very doubtful, on account of 
 its Latin form. The name Christiaui is first mentioned by Koman writers, and 
 as one in use among the peojple ; it is used by Tacitus and Suetonius on the 
 occasion of the incendiarism .of Nero and the cruelties then practised against the 
 Christians. "Nero," says Tacitus, Ann. xv. 44, "subdidit reos, et quaesitissimis 
 poenis affecit, quos per iiagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor 
 uomiuis ejus Christus." Compare Suetonius, Nero, xvi. Already, in Nero's time, 
 tbe people had called the hated sect, "Christians." The author may have 
 assigned the origin of this name to Antioch, because he thought that as a Gentile 
 name it must have originated in the first G«ntile city in which Christians 
 existed. 
 
92 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 to have secured a ready acceptance of the Gospel among the 
 Gentiles, but for that very reason to have called down on them the 
 bitter hostility of the Jews. In the whole account the apologetic 
 tendency and tlie literary freedom of the author of the Acts of the 
 Apostles are shown in a manner which throws great suspicion on 
 its historical statements-. 
 
 The miracles which the Apostle is reported to have performed in 
 this first missionary journey in the company of Barnabas bear most 
 undoubted tokens of the apologetic parallel with Peter. One of 
 Peter's most celebrated apostolic actions was his victory over Simon 
 Magus. According to- the Acts of the Apostles, Peter met the 
 sorcerer in Samaria, when fhe Apostle himself for the first time 
 visited the region beyond Judea in his apostolic calling. Parallel 
 with this is the meeting of the Apostle Paul with Elymas the 
 sorcerer, in Cypms, on his first missionary journey. With Paul, 
 as with Peter, the first important act of his apostolic life in foreign 
 lands is the conviction and punishment of the sorcerer. In both 
 cases the apostolic insight shows itself in the instantaneous unveil- 
 ing of the deep moral perversity which lay at the root of sorcery 
 as it came into contact with Christianity. Although the sorcerer 
 Elymas took up a different relation to Christianity from that 
 occupied by Simon Magus, the main idea of the speech against 
 the former is the same as in the speech of Peter, chap. viii. The 
 speech, xiii. 10, etc., evidently refers to viii. 21, etc. The main idea 
 in viil. 21, t; yap Kaptua crov ovk ecrriv evdela evcoTnov tov &eov, 
 is carried further in xiii. 8, etc., where the sorcerer is described as 
 ^TjTwv SiaaTpeyjrai airo t^? TrtcrTew?, ttXtj/cmj? Trarro? ho\ov Koi ttcwt)? 
 paBiovpyi.a<;, Si,aaTp6(f>a>v to? oSou? Kvpiov ra<; evdeia<;. This is an 
 example of how imitation generally supplies a want of originality 
 by exaggeration. It seems by this that the sorcerer Elymas did 
 not, like Simon Magus, endeavour to introduce himself into the 
 Christian community by impure means, but set himself in direct 
 opposition to Christianity, for which reason the speech against him 
 contains still stronger expressions than that against Simon 
 (especially in xiii. 10, vie StaySo'Xou). But the exaggerated copy is 
 
Chap. IV.] SIS FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 93 
 
 most evidently apparent in the fact, that whilst there is no punish- 
 ment prononnced against Simon, and he is even commanded to pray- 
 to God for forgiveness of his sins, a miracle of punishment takes 
 place in the case of Elymas. This punishment itself is nothing 
 else than a figurative representation of the main idea by which the 
 sorcerer, or rather sorcery itself, is characterised. As sorcery in 
 contrast to the true religion is untrue, perverted, erroneous, and 
 therefore gropes about in dim light, crouches in darkness, blind, 
 seeing nothing, so this is symbolised in 'the punishment inflicted 
 on the sorcerer, Trapaj(pfifia he eire-Keaev eir avrov d^iif koI 
 <TK0T0<;, Kai irepiar/cov ei^yyrei '^etpayayovf, xiii. 11. How clearly the 
 hand of the imitator has been at work here ! for all these traits are 
 only the carrying out of the ovk ei/dela Kaphta, viii. 21. 
 
 This first important apostolic act of Paul is also remarkable, 
 because from this time the Acts of the Apostles gives him his own 
 distinctive apostolic name, Paul, instead of Saul, the name used up 
 to this point. Henceforth he is named not after, but before 
 Barnabas. It cannot be doubted that .this change of name here 
 has some reference to the Roman Proconsul, Sergius Paulus, 
 converted by the Apostle Paul, and that the explanation of Jerome, 
 " Apostolus a prime ecclesiae spolio, Proconsule Sergio Paulo, victorias 
 suae trophaea retulit erexitque vexillum ut Paulus ex Saulo vocare- 
 tur," is the true one — only the erection of these trophies is not 
 to be ascribed to the Apostle himself, but merely to tradition which 
 connected the change of name already adopted by the Apostle with 
 an important act of his apostolic life. How could the arrival of 
 the Apostle of the Gentiles at his full glory be better shown than 
 by the conversion of a Eoman Proconsul? The Eoman form of 
 the name hints also at the conversion of a Eoman. The conversion 
 of a Eoman Proconsul was thus the great work by which the 
 Apostle clearly proved his right to the name which he bore as the 
 Apostle to the GentUes. The Gentile name Paul is the proper 
 name by which to denote the Apostle to the Gentiles. Looking in 
 this way on the account of how the name was given, we have a 
 parallel to the distinctively apostolic act of the Apostle Peter, 
 
94 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 Matt. xvi. 16. As Peter then, through his declaration, steadfast as 
 a rock, that Jesus was the Christ and the Son of God, bore witness 
 to the true meaning of his name, and was no longer to be called 
 Simon, but Peter, so Paul adopted, as a memorial, the name of the 
 Roman Paul, whom he had converted, thus giving public evidence 
 that, as an Apostle to the Gentries, he had a right to bear that name. 
 
 Yet even the conversion of so distinguished a Roman was not a 
 sufficient display of energy to signalise this period in the life of 
 the Apostle ; it had to be shown to be yet more important and rich 
 in results by the victory it then won over formidable opposition, the 
 struggle of the true divine faith with the false, magical, and 
 deinoniacal faith. For this reason, the point at which the name of 
 Paul receives its new importance is the point when his address 
 overwhelms the sorcerer, xiii. 9 : 5'ai'Xo? Be, 6 koI IlavXo';, TrXija-dek 
 TTvev/xaTO^ djLov, Koi aTevLcra'; et? avrov eiirev, etc. So two different 
 events in the life of Peter are joined in one, for it was necessary 
 that Paul's first appearance as Apostle to the Gentiles should take 
 place in some striking and distinctly apostolic act. 
 
 Such narratives as those of the two Sorcerers in Acts viii. and 
 xiii. are no doubt commoidy considered worthy of historical beUef, 
 because sorcerers and enchanters were frequently to be met with 
 at that time, and received ready acceptance from men of the first 
 standing. Of course this cannot be denied, and we see an example 
 of the kind in Josephus (Antiq. xx. 7), where he mentions the 
 sorcerer, Simon of Cyprus, as a man much thought of by Felix, the 
 Roman Procurator of Judea ; yet the more common certain pheno- 
 mena of the age are, the more natural is it that tradition and poetry 
 should borrow their materials from them. It is for this reason 
 that if we wish to prove the truth of the narrative in the Acts of 
 the Apostles, we must not appeal to Alexander of Abonoteichos, 
 described by Lucian, whose prophecies were eagerly sought after 
 by the most important men in Rome, and whose most zealous 
 adherent was the Roman statesman Rutilianus.^ It is clear that 
 in this impostor Lucian does not intend to sketch any historical 
 1 Neander, Gesoli. der Pfl. p. 148, Bobn 107. 
 
Chap. IV.] HIS FIB8T MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 95 
 
 personage, but only a common type of character at the time. Nor 
 does the fact that the Acts of the Apostles gives to the sorcerer the 
 name of Bar-Jesus, and says of him that he was a Jewish false 
 prophet, make anything for the truth of the narrative ; his being 
 a Jew would make him all the more fit to be brought forward in 
 this manner as an adversary of the Apostle PauL But the conver- 
 sion of the Eoman Proconsul has a very slight degree of pro- 
 bability. The Acts of the Apostles does not give us any further 
 particulars on the subject, it does not mention baptism, but merely 
 says that he "believed," and this was in consequence of the 
 miracle wrought on the sorcerer, the questionableness of which we 
 have already seen. And what are we to think of the conversion of 
 a man in such a rank of life, where there was no weighty reason 
 far the change, and no warrant that the impression produced would 
 be more than merely transitory? If such minor circumstances 
 cannot in any case be regarded as confirming the truth of the 
 narrative, we come back to the general point of view from which 
 such stories have to be considered, with reference to the nature of 
 the historical record as a whole, of which they form the ingredients. 
 The Apostle Paul is said to have wrought a second miracle 
 during the same missionary journey at Lystra in Lycaonia, on a 
 man lame from his birth, xiv. 8, etc. This miracle also presents 
 a duplicate to one wrought by Peter, and described iii. 1, 4. Here, 
 as there, it is a p^ajXo? e'/c KoiXla<; /iT/rpo? avrov, iii. 2, xiv. 8. The 
 position which the worker of the miracle takes up towards the 
 lame man, is indicated in both places by the word drevl^eiv 
 {aTevicra<i aiirw — eiTre [IlavXo^] xiv. 9, drevia-a'; Se IIerpo<; et? 
 avTov — etTre, iii. 4), and the miracle following is in both cases 
 described by the same words, ■^XXero km TrepteTraret, xiv. 10, 
 e^aXk6ixevo<i Icttij Kal Tre/jteTraVet, iii. 8. The first narrative, where 
 the lame man is described as a beggar, presents several additional 
 features ; and the second draws attention to the •mari'i tov auOrjvai 
 of the lame man. As the two miracles are exactly the same cure, 
 we might think the similarity of the two narratives to be very 
 natural, if there were not visible in both cases a special design to 
 
96 LIFM AND WORK OP PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 have the miracle just such as would awaken great attention, and 
 point out the Apostle unmistakably as a miracle-worker. This 
 end could be best obtained by a cure wrought on a lame man 
 who had never been seen to walk, but who now sprang at once to 
 his feet, and walking and leaping among all the people, was a living 
 proof of the miracle that had been wrought on him. This trait 
 is much dwelt on at iii. 8, and in the same way at xiv. 10, the 
 healed man mixes with the crowd, and to the same effect 
 (rjKXeTo Koi irepieTraTet,, ol he o-)(\ol tSoVre?, etc.) '^ The leading 
 
 1 Neander simply translates and refers here, as usual ; he feels himself called 
 on, however, to add a note : " No one will feel constrained to believe this (that 
 the lame man rose and walked at the mere word of the Apostle), but those who 
 recognise the new divine power which entered into humanity through Christ, 
 But whoever is not entangled in mechanical views of nature, whoever recognises 
 the might of spirit over nature, and a hidden dynamic connection between soul 
 and body, will find nothing so incredible in the representation of divine strength 
 working directly on the whole inner being of man, and bringing about effects of 
 quite a different kind from those attainable by the general remedies of the ordi- • 
 nary powers of nature." In a historical-critical investigation of the narratives in 
 the Acts of the Apostles, I hold it quite superfluous to go into the general dog- 
 matic question as to whether miracles are possible, for in such an investigation it 
 is not needed to inquire into the possibility of miracle, but only into their recog- 
 nisableness, and in this idea are comprised all the questions with which criticism 
 has to do. But when others, in evasion of the critical questions which as 
 historians they should have investigated, give unqualified assent to every miracle 
 which is related in any one of the New Testament writings, and think themselves 
 obliged to call to their assistance a theory of miracles, without being able to 
 adduce in its vindication any better argument than the accusation that those 
 who do not embrace this view of miracle are wanting in true insight into Chris- 
 tianity and nature, — such persons must put up with this accusation being thrown 
 back on themselves. The charge is made to take the place of positive grounds: 
 which shows us how weak the latter must be. The accusation that he who does 
 not believe a miracle in the Acts of the Apostles like the one in question, does 
 not acknowledge the divine strength of life bestowed on man through Christ, 
 gives a very dishonouring idea of Christianity, as it must necessarily foUow that 
 miracle belongs so essentially to Christianity, that everywhere, where Christianity 
 is not accompanied by miracle, it does not manifest its divine life-giving power. 
 As it is acknowledged that no miracle now takes place, at least none of the same 
 kind as those now in question, unless we take the legends of the middle ages 
 aud of the modern missionary reports as such, and assert of this belief that those 
 who do not share it must refuse to recognise the divine life-principle of Chris- 
 tianity, Christianity must long have been extinct. It is therefore only just to 
 Concede that Christianity contains divine vital powers apart from miracles which 
 one may heartily believe in, even if one does not consider every one of the miracles 
 
Chap. I.V.] HIS FIBST MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 97 
 
 thought of the historian is, that Paul had wrought as great and 
 astonishing a miracle as Peter had done, and that by the whole 
 affair he also had made an impression on the Gentiles that could 
 not possibly have been more powerful or more striking. In this 
 thought the sequel of the narrative closely agrees with its begin- 
 ning. In consequence of the miracle, Paul and Barnabas were 
 held by the astonished people to be gods, who had come down from 
 heaven to earth in the likeness of men. They called Paul Hermes, 
 and Barnabas Zeus ; and in this delusion preparations were 
 
 related in tbe New Testament as a real actual miracle, because the letter of the 
 narrative so describes it. As for the charge of taking a mechanical view of nature, 
 we may say that a mechanical view of nature is one which believes not in a living 
 organism of nature, but in a purely external relation between cause and effect, 
 and considers nature as a machine, set in motion from time to time by a force 
 applied from without. This is, however, precisely the view of nature which lies 
 at the root of the theory of miracles, for every miracle must be considered as an 
 interruption of the natural connection, established by an immanent law, between 
 cause and effect, which natural causes can do nothing to explain, and which must 
 be produced by the impact of some external power. This is necessarily the 
 theory of miracles, unless it be equally arbitrary with the mechanical theory of 
 nature. It is not evident what the power of spirit over nature and the secret 
 connection of soul and body has to do with the vindication of the theory of 
 miracle. What Sohleiermacher, in the well-known proposition in his "Glau- 
 benslehre,'' has said in regard to the divine omnipotence, ' ' that we no longer 
 consider that the divine omnipotence shows itself greater in the interruption of 
 the order of nature than in sustaining it in the usual course,'' applies with equal 
 force to the power of spirit over nature. Spirit shows its power over nature, 
 not in interruption and disturbance of the arrangements of nature, but, as its 
 essence is conformity with law, through the fact that it is the immanent law of 
 nature. In the sequel of the passage we are speaking of, however, the power of 
 the spirit over nature and the hidden dynamic connection between soul and body 
 seems to be called in with a view to the partial naturalising of the miracle. A 
 miracle such as the one in question, viz., the healing of a man lame from his 
 birth by a mere word, is supposed to become more credible, if we think of it, 
 first, as the action of divine power on the whole inner being of the man, the 
 healing itself being the direct result of the influence of this action, so that the heal- 
 ing results from the hidden but natural connection between soul and body. The 
 miracle is thus to be explained psychologically ; it happens in accordance with 
 the dynamic connection between soul and body ; the healing power works 
 through the medium of the soul, which operates on the body according to its own 
 laws. But how does the divine power itself afifeot the soul ? In a natural or 
 supernatural manner ? If in a natural manner, then there is no miracle at aU. 
 And it must then be explained how the healing which resulted from it is, never- 
 VOL. I. ^ 
 
98 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 made by the priest of Zeus in Lystra for a solemn sacrifice to the 
 supposed gods, when the two Apostles, who from ignorance of the 
 language did not at once understand what was going on, saw how 
 things were. They were just in time to prevent, with great difRculty, 
 the completion of the hateful act which was already so far advanced. 
 Even at first sight the affair has a very strange and romantic aspect, 
 and we cannot avoid asking why, among all the miracles which the 
 Apostle wrought, this should have had so remarkable a result? 
 why this apotheosis should have taken place at Lystra of aU. places? 
 why the people of this place should so suddenly have gone from 
 one extreme to the other, that they chased -ndth stones out of the city 
 and left for dead the same Apostle to whom just before they had 
 been willing to offer sacrifice as a god, merely on account of the 
 insinuation of some Jews from Antioch ? All that we can say on 
 this subject is comprised in what Olshausen remarks, " The Gentiles 
 took Paul and Barnabas for Mercury and Jupiter, as these gods 
 were said to have once visited Philemon and Baucis, the ancieDt 
 inhabitants of this very district. These occurrences are held to be 
 
 theleaa, represented as a miracle. If it affects the soiil in a superDatnral manner, 
 the miracle remains, and it is not evident what is gained by showing that it is 
 partly capable of a natural explanation. Where a miracle is accepted (unless 
 we are playing with idle words), there must also be accepted an interruption 
 and disturbance of the order of nature ; but in accepting miracle, it is perfectly 
 the same whether it is accepted at one point or another, and perfectly useless to 
 try to conceal this interruption of the order of nature by speaking of the hidden 
 dynamic connection between soul and body, thereby awakening suspicion that 
 the interruption of the order of nature is felt to be a more serious matter than 
 is allowed to appear. If we do not hesitate to heap miracle upon miracle, then 
 we must not hesitate to confess without affectation or equivocation that we are 
 always ready to break the thread of the order of nature on any occasion when it 
 appears desirable to do so. Perhaps we may convince ourselves that the beliet 
 in miracles must at least be grounded on better reasons than are here used, and 
 that it may not be so superfluous to inquire in each individual case whether the 
 character of the miraculous narrative, I will not say obliges, but entitles, us to 
 say that there is actvially a miracle at the bottom of it. But as such things are 
 generally treated, it can be no great task to defend any such legendary miracle 
 with such phrases as " New divine life-power," " Mechanical view of nature," 
 " Power of spirit over nature," " Hidden dynamic connection between soul and 
 body," etc. 
 
Chap. IV.] HIS FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 99 
 
 specially interesting, in so far as they show that the belief in the 
 ancient gods stiU had deep root in the life of the people, for we 
 must remember that this event took place in a small remote town 
 where the philosophical enlightenment of the Augustan age had 
 not yet penetrated." But if we appeal to the legend of Philemon 
 and Baucis, what right have we to assume that it was not only the 
 Greek and Roman poets who related that legend, and who placed 
 its scene in Phrygia and the neighbouring districts (this locality 
 being a favourite theatre for primitive mythical occurrences of this 
 kind), but that the inhabitants of these places themselves enter- 
 tained it as a native tradition, and still preserved the religious 
 belief which it embodied ? There is also unquestionably a very 
 great difference between a fact such as is described here and what is 
 spoken of by Homer, and very pathetically described by Neander 
 as " a belief' spread widely among the heathen from the most ancient 
 times, springing from the depth of the human breast, from the un- 
 deniable feeling of the connection of the huinan race with God, a 
 belief that the gods descend in human form in order to dispense 
 benefits- among men." Still less can we understand how, according 
 to Neander's assertion, this belief was furthered by the religious 
 ferment at that time existing. Eeligious ferment rather promotes 
 doubt and unbelief, and altitough that age with its unbelief was 
 stiU at the same time much addicted to a faith in a direct union 
 with the higher supernatural world, still it was by no means the 
 childlike faith of the Homeric world that was stiLL cherished at 
 that times or to which men had recurred ; but it was rather a belief 
 in sorcery, uniting the natural and supernatural worlds, and sup- 
 ported ort a belief in the power of demons; For this reason we 
 should have thought it much more natural if the people, in their 
 astonishment at the workers of the miracle, had taken them for 
 sorcerers and magicians, instead of seeing in them an Homeric 
 incarnation of the gods. This may be illustrated by an example 
 lying near at hand. The same locality which is assigned to the 
 tradition of the pious couple Philemon and Baucis, was also the 
 home of the well-known soothsayer and miracle-worker, ApoUonius 
 
100 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 of Tyana.^ According to his biographer, Philostratus, he was sup- 
 posed by the inhabitants of the country in which he was bom to 
 be a son of Zeus ; but this is part of the exaggerations of Philo- 
 stratus, and the truth is, that originally he held no higher place in 
 tlie estimation of the people than that of a sorcerer. This narrative 
 does not become more credible when it is seen to imply that the 
 belief in the appearance of the gods of the Homeric and pre- 
 Homeric age still flourished at the time when it was written. We 
 are undoubtedly reminded by it of the old traditions of appearances 
 of gods, especially of the tradition of Philemon and Baucis, but 
 criticism, instead of taking such tradition as a confirmation of the 
 historic truth of the fact here related, has rather to turn round and 
 ask, whether the pretended fact itself is to be looked at as anything 
 but a later formation on the model of the ancient mythical occur- 
 rence. The apologetic parallelism between the two Apostles 
 gives here also the simple key to the explanation of the alleged 
 fact, a fact which is all the more incredible that the miracle, with 
 the reality 'of which it must stand or fall, is itself entirely incre- 
 dible. It is stated in the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles, as a 
 peculiar distinction of the elder Apostles, and especially of Peter, 
 that they were honoured by the people with a positively rehgious 
 veneration as superhuman beings. The Apostles collectively are 
 thus depicted, v. 11, sq. The author of the Acts of the Apostles 
 describes Peter in a very especial manner as being regarded by a 
 Gentile in the light of a lofty superhuman being, when Cornehus, 
 at the entrance of Peter into his house, fell with religious reverence 
 at his feet {jTecrcov eiro tow? TroSas irpoaeKvyi^a-ev, x. 25), and 
 Peter taking him up, said, avaaT7]di, Kayw aino<; avOpawo'! 
 elfii. Just in the same sense the two Apostles say to the Gentiles 
 at Lystra, who were worshipping them as gods, avBpe<;, rt touta 
 iroieiTe ; km rj/j.el'; ofioi.oTraOel'; eajMSV Vjjuv avOpanroi (xiv. 15). If 
 
 ' Ovid says, Metamorphoses viii. 719, after he has described the transformation 
 of the aged couple into two trees entwining together, 
 
 " Ostendit adhno Tyaneius illic 
 Incola de gemiua vicinoa arbore truncos." 
 
Chap. IV.] HIS FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 101 
 
 the author of the Acts of the Apostles wished to make his Apostle 
 Paul participate in this reverence and glorification, resulting from 
 a deep impression of his superhuman dignity, what better oppor- 
 tunity could be afforded than among the inhabitants of a country 
 in which, according to tradition, it was believed from ancient times 
 that the gods appeared in the likeness of men, and went about 
 among them ; until they were recognised and worshipped as gods 
 by those who were awe-struck at the miracles they wrought.^ 
 
 But will the speeches and sermons which the Apostle deli- 
 vered during his first missionary journey give us a truer picture 
 of his Apostolic activity? "We might justly expect this to be 
 the case. The more independently the Apostle entered on his 
 path the more ought we to find him as he was, and no otherwise, 
 in his words ; the fresher he came to the work laid upon him, the 
 more clearly ought he to display the Pauline spirit in his speeches. 
 But in this point also we are deceived in our expectations. How 
 little does the lengthy address with which the Apostle makes his 
 first appearance in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia, bear a 
 Pauline character ? How striking, on the contrary, is the depen- 
 dent relation in which it stands to the speeches contained in the 
 preceding part of the Acts of the Apostles ! The speech takes in 
 its first part a purely historical character. It begins with an 
 enumeration of the favours which God had shown from the 
 earliest times to the Israelites, in that he chose their fathers, 
 prospered their descendants in Egypt till they became a great 
 people, led them out of Egypt by his miraculous power, accom- 
 panied them through the wilderness, and bestowed on them the 
 
 ' That just the same two gods who are said to have appeared to Philemon 
 and Baucis in the same district, viz., Hermes and Zeus (Jupiter hue specie mor- 
 tal! cumque parents venit Atlantiades positis cadueifer alis — Ov. Met. viii. 626), 
 here enter on the scene, seems to indicate that the author was thinking of this 
 very tradition, or at least of one very similar. The appearance of these gods was 
 at that time also accompanied by miracles which excited astonishment. The 
 author of the Acts of the Apostles shows us elsewhere that he is an author of 
 literary culture and of learning, and that he knows how to utilise his acquaintance 
 with mythology to increase the interest of his narrative. Compare what he says, 
 xix. 24, about the Ephesian Artemis, and, xvii., about the description of Athens. 
 
102 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 Land of Canaan as their own possession, and especially in that he 
 gave them David, the man after his own heart, for their king. 
 Such a review of the favours and guidance of God, since the days 
 of the patriarchs, is given in the speech of Stephen (vii.), only that 
 his speech starts from a different point of view, and carries on into 
 further details what is here given more compendiously. Both 
 speeches dwell mostly on the time of the patriarchs, the period in 
 which the people were growing up in Egypt, and that of King 
 David. (Compare especially, xiii. 17, tw \aov vy^asaev with vii. 
 17, r)V^7)aeu 6 \ao<; koI eTrXrjdvvdrj ev AlyvirTO).) The next 
 division of the speech, vv. 23-31, harmonises most with the two 
 speeches of the Apostle Peter, x. 37-41 (John the Baptist is here 
 also particularly mentioned) and iii 13-17. Compare especially 
 ol ap'XpvTe'; avTwv, tovtov ayvorjaavTev, etc. etc., xiii. 27, and Kara 
 ajvoiav eTTpd^are oiaTrep Koi ol ap-)(pvTei; vficbv, iii. 17. '0 8e 
 0609 rjjebpev avrov etc veKpcov — onive^ etai, p,apTvpe^ avTov Trpoi 
 Tov Xaov, xiii. 30, and bv 6 ©eo? rjyeipev ev veKpSiv, ov 'qim^ 
 ^dpTvpe'; ecTfiev, iii. 15. The succeeding section, w. 32-37, follows 
 Peter's speech, ii. 27, sq., where the same argument is drawn from 
 the same passage of the Psalms, xvi. 10, which is here also the 
 principal text appealed to. For the conclusion which follows, 8w 
 TOVTOV vfilv a(peai<i d/jiapTiaiv icaTo/yyeWeTar Koi diro irdvTav m 
 ovK r]hvvT]driTe ev to) vo/j,cp Mavaeco'i BiKaiwOrjvai, ev tovt(0 •Ra<s o 
 TTKTTevcov SiKaiovTai, xiii. 38, 39, no parallel can be traced with 
 the earlier speech ; but do not these concluding words give us the 
 impression that the author may himself have felt, after he had made 
 the Apostle Paul speak long enough in the manner of Peter, that he 
 ought now to make him say something specially PauKne ? If the 
 most general thought in the Pauline doctrine of justification, as it 
 is developed in the Epistles of the Apostle, were to be abstracted 
 and stated by itself, this was the proper way to do so. But, con- 
 sequently, how foreign is the relation in which this doctrine stands to 
 the rest of the speech ; how purposeless does it appear, thus intro- 
 duced for the first time, and coming at the very end of the discourse ! 
 This part of the speech seems to have made a like impression on 
 
Chap. IV.] HIS FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 103 
 
 Olshausen, for lie remarks on xiii. 37, " In the light of the Christian 
 consciousness of the later Church, it appears strange that the 
 Apostle Paul here lays all the stress on the resurrection, and not 
 on the death of the Lord, as does Peter also in the speeches in the 
 first part of the Acts. Yes : Paul here connects, as it seems, the 
 a(pea-i<; dfiapTiwv with the resurrection, though in his Epistles he 
 presents the death of Christ as the source of the forgiveness of sins. 
 Yet the Apostle's teaching becomes quite intelligible in this regard 
 if we reflect that in the missionary speeches by which men were 
 to be convinced for the first time that Jesus was the Messiah, he 
 could not develop more closely the contents of the Gospel, but felt 
 it of the most importance to lay the foundation of the belief in the 
 Messiahship of Jesus. Now the death of Christ was an occasion of 
 offence, and had therefore to be kept in the background; the 
 resurrection, on the other hand, was the strongest part of the 
 argument, and therefore it is made the principal subject of the 
 speech." If the striking feature of this speech be explained by the 
 occasion of offence which the death of Jesus was to the Jews, we 
 must remember that this offence could never be avoided, that no 
 speech of this kind could have been delivered without speaking of 
 the death of Jesus. The object of the speaker cannot therefore 
 have been to leave the death of Jesus in the background (in this 
 speech it is by no means so left, xiii. 27-29), but, on the contrary, 
 to place it in such a relation to the Gospel doctrine of salvation 
 that it should appear as an essential element in it. This might be 
 done in two ways : the death of Jesus could be treated in such a 
 way as to lead up to the resurrection, or the death could be con- 
 sidered as the cause of the forgiveness of sins (though not, of course, 
 apart from the resurrection). The first is the line taken in the 
 speech of Peter ; the other, the peculiar Pauline way of treat- 
 ment. But if the peculiarities of this speech are said to consist 
 in this, that there is not so much said about the death as about the 
 resurrection, still nothing is explained, as we cannot perceive why 
 there is nothing said about the forgiveness of sins through the 
 death of Jesus, nor why the latter does not serve as an additional 
 
104 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 ground for the belief in the Messiahship of Jesus. The explanation 
 amounts simply to a repetition of what is sought to be explained, 
 namely, that the speech does not so much bear the stamp of Paul 
 as that of Peter. It does not, however, bear this stamp only in the 
 passage referred to by Olshausen, but also in the preceding one ; and 
 if the peculiar Pauline idea of the insufficiency of the law for justi- 
 fication is enunciated in xiii. 38-39, it by no means foUows, as 
 Olshausen thinks, that the authenticity of the speech is thus placed 
 beyond question, for the way in which this is done serves, as we 
 have already seen, only to make it more doubtful. 
 
 It results from all this that here, as elsewhere, we learn nothing 
 more than what was the standpoint of the author, and only from 
 that standpoint was it possible to give such a recapitulation of the 
 earlier speeches of the Acts of the Apostles, as is here done ; and 
 to make the Apostle Paul deliver a speech so thoroughly character- 
 istic of Peter that its Pauline conclusion seems to be provided 
 simply to remind the reader of what he might have otherwise 
 forgotten, namely, that it was not Peter but Paul who was speaking. 
 The threat contained in the concluding words is evidently connected 
 with what is afterwards related of the result of the speech, namely, 
 that the Gospel was rejected in the most decided manner and with 
 the greatest hatred against the Apostle, by the Jews at Antioch, 
 xiii. 45. That which really afterwards happened is foreseen by the 
 speaker, little as such a change in affairs could be expected after 
 xiii. 42. A speech which indicates so clearly the joints at which its 
 several component parts are put together, can have no great claim 
 to Pauline originality. Wliat then remains certain to us concern- 
 ing this first missionary journey of the Apostle, during which 
 Christian churches were founded and organised in several places? 
 The history gives no further information about the churches in the 
 places it names, and it will be shown in the sequel how much 
 uncertainty rests on the principle, which the Apostle is said to have 
 adopted at this time, to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, only, 
 however, after it had been offered to and refused by the Jews. 
 
CHAPTEE V. 
 
 THE TEANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE APOSTLE PAUL AND THE ELDEE 
 APOSTLES AT JERUSALEM. — ACTS XV., GALATIANS II. 
 
 We now for the first time arrive at a point at which we can 
 attain some positive result, as we can here compare with the story 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, on which we can lay no great depen- 
 dence, the testimony of the Apostle himself. But this result can 
 only be attained by a criticism which works on different principles 
 from the usual ones. 
 
 The two first chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians form a 
 historical document of the greatest importance in our investiga- 
 tions into the true standpoint of the Apostle and his relations 
 to the elder Apostles. But if these chapters are to be of any 
 value in the interest of the truth of the history, we must first of 
 all free ourselves from the arbitrary supposition which generally 
 attends this inquiry, that the most complete harmony must neces- 
 sarily prevail between the author of the Acts of the Apostles 
 and the Apostle Paul, and that the one narrative can only be 
 used in confirmation of the other. It is self-evident that as the 
 Apostle appears as an eye-witness and an actor in his own personal 
 afiairs, his statement alone ought to be held as authentic. In this 
 way an unfavourable light is certainly shed on the Acts of the 
 Apostles, the narrative of which can only be regarded as intentionally 
 deviating from historical truth in the interest of the special tendency 
 which it represents. The results to which the foregoing inquiry 
 has already conducted us, make it less remarkable that this should 
 
,106 LIPB AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 be the relation in which the Acts stand to the true history : yet 
 even had we not learned this lesson, we should have to acknow- 
 ledge that in the present instance we have simply an undeniable 
 discrepancy between the two narratives. AU attempts to reconcile 
 the two accounts, such as are generally made by interpreters and 
 critics, are but useless trouble ; they not only result in forcing on 
 the Apostle's words a sense they cannot bear, but also in concealing 
 the truth of the historical facts, or at least placing them in a false 
 light, and imputing to the Apostle what can only redound to the 
 disadvantage of his character. 
 
 In order to make as much use as possible in the interest of 
 historical truth of so original and trustworthy a narrative as that 
 which the Apostle himself gives of the course of his Christian 
 development, and his whole apostolic position in relation to the 
 older Apostles, we must not overlook what he relates as to the 
 events connected with his conversion. Here we meet at once with 
 discrepancies between this account and that of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, which show very clearly the want of historical truth in 
 the latter. According to Acts ix. 22, the Apostle remained for 
 some time in Damascus after he had been baptized by Ananias and 
 received into the Christian community, and during this time he 
 was zealously occupied in accordance with his newly-gained con- 
 victions in seeking to persuade the Jews in Damascus of the truth 
 that Jesus was the Messiah. But as plots were laid against him by 
 the Jews and his life endangered, he was obliged to leave Damascus, 
 and went to Jerusalem, ix. 26. Now in the Epistle to the 
 Galatians, i. 1 6, the Apostle himself says that immediately after his 
 conversion he went not to Jerusalem but into Arabia, and from 
 there again back to Damascus, and that only three years afterwards 
 did he travel to Jerusalem. The cause of his leaving Damascus 
 was undoubtedly the danger with which he was threatened by the 
 Ethnarch of King Aretas in Damascus, and although this cause is 
 not spoken of in the Epistle to the Galatians, it is mentioned by 
 the Apostle himself (2 Corinthians xi. 32), and it cannot be placed 
 in any other period than this. In this detail indeed the two 
 
Chap. V.] TBANSAGTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 107 
 
 accounts agree ; in the rest the difference is great enough. Not 
 only does the Acts pass over in complete silence the journey of the 
 Apostle into Arabia, it speaks of his sojourn in Damascus as 
 merely of some days' duration, whUst the Apostle himself says that 
 years elapsed between his conversion and his journey to Jerusalem. 
 Even if we put a wide construction on T^fiipa'i iKavm, ix. 23, and 
 place the journey to Arabia in this time, which we would be quite 
 warranted to do, as Galatians i. 17 does not give us the length of 
 the sojourn in Arabia, we must stiU confess that the expression 
 Tjfiepai. iKavai is not a fit expression for a time extending over fuU 
 three years. But should we be inclined to disregard the mere 
 expression, we could only do so if the connection of this passage 
 made it probable that -^fiepai 'iKaval had to be understood as a space 
 of time comprising several years. This is not the case : indeed 
 quite the contrary. What is said (ix. 26) about the return of the 
 Apostle to Jerusalem, that he Tj-apayevofievo^ et? lepovcraXr^fi, e-yrei- 
 puTo KoWaaOat toi<; iiaOr^Tal';, Kat, iravre'; e<po^ovvro avrov, firj ttict- 
 TevovTe<; on, earl fj,a6r]T-^<;, places us manifestly in a time which 
 could not have been very distant from the conversion of the Apostle, 
 a time still preserving the fresh impression of so unexpected and 
 incredible an occurrence, and which is therefore reckoned by the 
 author of the Acts of the Apostles not by years but by days. 
 The Apostle endeavoured when he came to Jerusalem to ally him- 
 self with the disciples as one who belonged to them and was as 
 one of them (we may compare on this meaning of KoKkaaOai, v. 
 13) ; but they were all shy of him ; they would not come near their 
 old enemy and persecutor, because they did not believe that he 
 was a disciple. How could this have been possible, if at that 
 time a period of more than three years had elapsed since the con- 
 version of the Apostle ? and if, during that time, he had laboured 
 in the cause of the Gospel not merely in distant Arabia, where his 
 sojourn perhaps did not last long, but in Damascus, which was 
 not so far from Jerusalem, that the news of so remarkable an 
 occurrence would not be at once transmitted from the one place to 
 the other ? The aim which the Apostle had in view in his journey 
 
108 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 to Damascus, Acts ix. 2, corroborates the supposition that there 
 was frequent intercourse between the two cities ; and Acts ix. 20 
 obliges us to think that during his residence in Damascus he was 
 engaged in preaching, thus furnishing the most tangible proof of 
 the change that had taken place in him. 
 
 In both the speeches in which the author of the Acts of the 
 Apostles makes the Apostle himself tell the story of his conversion, 
 his journey to Jerusalem is mentioned in direct connection with it, 
 and without any indication of a long interval having elapsed 
 between the two occurrences (xxii. 16, 17, xxvL 20). It is true 
 that in both these passages, especially the latter, the narrative is so 
 condensed that by themselves they prove nothing, but simply serve 
 to confirm the narrative of the earlier passage. But between this 
 latter and the narrative in the Epistle to the Galatians there is a 
 contradiction which cannot be got over, and which shows how 
 impossible it is to think that the author had command of original 
 sources when he drew up his narrative. But if this discrepancy 
 to which we have drawn attention is not the most serious one, but 
 merely one feature of a much deeper and more fatal contradiction, 
 how futile is it to contend about minor points ! The Apostle, in 
 the Epistle to the Galatians, asserts in the most decided and 
 solemn manner that he had not received his Gospel from man, but 
 immediately through the fact that God had revealed his Son 
 in him. Immediately after he had received from God the charge 
 to declare the Gospel to the Gentiles, he " conferred not with flesh 
 and blood,'' neither with men in general, nor especially with the 
 Apostles who were connected with him by common national ties 
 (this is the force of aap^ kcu al/jLo) ; he did not then go to Jerusa- 
 lem to the elder Apostles, but into Arabia, and thence to Damascus, 
 and only at the expiration of three years did he go to Jerusalem. 
 
 It is clear that here the Apostle does all in his power (a & 
 ypa^a vfuv, tBov evainov tov &eov on ov yfrevBo/xac, i. 20) to meet 
 the assertion that during the time which immediately followed his 
 conversion he stood in such a relation to the elder Apostles that 
 his apostolic mission could be looked upon as a thing derived from 
 
CHAr. v.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 109 
 
 their apostolic authority. He wishes to have it believed that he 
 entered on his apostolic mission under the influence of a revelation 
 vouchsafed to him alone, in a perfectly free and independent man- 
 ner, unbiassed by any human interposition. It is with this view 
 that he makes his statements so distinct as to the place where he 
 spent the period immediately following his conversion ; he says it was 
 in Arabia and Damascus, not in Jerusalem, that is, not in any place 
 where he could enter into near relations with the elder Apostles. 
 Even when he went to Jerusalem at the expiration of three years — 
 after a time, that is to say, in which his apostolic character, what- 
 ever it was to be, must have already declared and consolidated 
 itself — his aim was by no means to get the elder Apostles to grant 
 him authority to follow his calling, but only to make the acquaint- 
 ance of Peter, who during their fifteen days' intercourse sufficiently 
 showed that he had nothing to allege against Paul's apostolic call. 
 If the Apostle had met the assembled Apostles, or even some of 
 them, this intercourse might have lent probability to the view that 
 he got them then to legitimise his apostolic calling. For this 
 reason he lays peculiar stress on the circumstance that during that 
 time he saw no apostle but Peter, for Peter could not have author- 
 ised him to assume the apostolic office without the express consent 
 of the rest of the Apostles, although by his own behaviour towards 
 Paul he gave the most valuable testimony that he fully recognised 
 the apostolic mission of the latter. Every idea of the authorisa- 
 tion of the apostolic office of Paul by the other apostles during 
 the period immediately succeeding, is done away with by the fact 
 that Paul was in Syria and Cilicia, and did not come into contact 
 with the churches in Judea at all. The chief point towards which 
 these considerations tend is undoubtedly that declaration which 
 is given by the Apostle in the most positive manner, that during 
 the whole period treated of in chapter i. nothing took place 
 between him and the other Apostles which could be taken as a 
 sign of subordination or dependence on his part. He would not 
 give up any of his independence, because the more dependent on 
 the rest of the Apostles he appeared, the more might the indepen- 
 
110 LIFE AND WORK OF FAUL. [Part I. 
 
 dence of his call be called in questioa But if we take into con- 
 sideration that the opponents of the Apostle, as we see in his 
 Epistles, made use of the authority of the other Apostles to his 
 disadvantage in the churches, and represented his doctrine as 
 opposed to that of the other Apostles, what a necessity was there 
 not for his so insisting on the independence of his position ? If 
 he had ever acknowledged the relation of dependence on the rest 
 of the Apostles, if he had not emphatically persisted in declaring 
 that he was an Apostle not by means of them, but as directly as 
 they themselves, then he must have submitted to their authority 
 with regard to any difference in doctrine existing between himself 
 and them ; he would have had no principle to which to appeal in 
 order to prove and to enforce that which he, in opposition to the 
 other Apostles, asserted to be the essence of Christianity. The 
 whole significance of his apostolic labours depended on the fact 
 that he was a specially called Apostle, and independent of all the 
 other Apostles. In this way only could he claim for his view of 
 Christianity the authority which the other Apostles claimed for 
 theirs ; and it is perfectly clear how critical a point this was for 
 Paul, and how much weight he attached to those appeals which he 
 made with so much emphasis to the well-known facts of histoiy 
 as the sufficient confirmation of his right. 
 
 Now how does the statement in the Acts of the Apostles agree 
 with this? What does the author say, when we compare his 
 account with the direct assertion of the Apostle himself? Exactly 
 the opposite of what the Apostle has asserted in the most decided 
 and most solemn manner. In Acts ix. 27, the Apostle is repre- 
 sented as having passed some time in intimate fellowship with the 
 Apostles at Jerusalem soon after his conversion. Should we decide 
 to pass over the discrepancy on which we have before remarked, 
 and assume that Acts ix. 27 speaks of the same residence of the 
 Apostle in Jerusalem which he himself mentions. Gal. i. 17, it 
 is nevertheless perfectly clear that the idea which the Apostle 
 was most careful to guard against, namely, that he had received an 
 authorisation of his apostolic office from the rest of the Apostles, 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. Ill 
 
 is here directly suggested. It is stated, ix. 27, that Barnabas 
 introduced him to the circle of the Apostles (for so must these 
 words be taken in any case, rfja'ye 7rpo<; tov<; aTroaroXov;, even if 
 one or other of the Apostles may have been absent), and laid before 
 them an account of the occurrences on the road to Damascus as if 
 for their decision and recognition. If this account be held as 
 authentic, it would really make the Apostle a liar ; and it is simply 
 incredible that he should have given the assurance, a 8e 7/)a(/>a) 
 vfiiv, tSov evcoTTiov Toi 0eov on ov ■yfrevBo/Mai. We cannot, on the 
 other hand, feel any surprise at the way in which the author of 
 the Acts chooses to tell the story ; the difference between him and 
 the Apostle grows greater the more closely we consider it. What 
 a striking contradiction lies in this, that the Acts of the Apostles 
 represents the Apostle as preaching the Gospel at that time in 
 Jerusalem as weU as in Judea, whilst he himself Galatians i. 22, 
 says he was not personally known to the Christian churches in 
 Judea, that they had only heard that their former persecutor was 
 now preaching the faith which he formerly sought to destroy, and 
 praised God on that account. How does this agree with the irap- 
 priaia^eaOat ev rm ovofiaTi tuv Kvpiov Irjaov {ev 'lepovaaXrifju), 
 and with the assertion put into the moiith of the Apostle himself, 
 xxvi. 20, Tot9 ev ^afiacrKw irpwTov Kai lepoa-oXvfioi,'; et?, traadv 
 T6 T7]v ')(<xipav TTjs Iovhaca<; Kai rot? eOveaiv aTrrf/yeWov fieravoew. 
 At what period can this have taken place, if not, as the words 
 clearly indicate, during that in which, according to the Apostle's 
 own assurance it did not occur ? for he never went afterwards with 
 such an object to Jerusalem. If he had for a long while laboured 
 with all boldness in proclaiming the Gospel in Jerusalem, he could 
 not have been so unknown in the churches of Judea. The Acts 
 of the Apostles gives a character of publicity to the residence of 
 the Apostle in Jerusalem at that time, which, according to the 
 description given of it by the Apostle himself, it could never have 
 had. How can we think that in the short space of time in which 
 he was occupied by what he tells us was his errand, namely, con- 
 ferring with the Apostle Peter, he could have appeared in pubhc 
 
112 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 in such a manner as is described in the Acts ? In connection with 
 the whole of this anomalous statement, the Acts of the Apostles 
 gives another cause for his departure from Jerusalem. In his zeal 
 for the Gospel he came into collision with the Hellenists, and 
 because they sought to put him to death, the brethren brought 
 him for safety to Ctesarea. Not mere Jews but Hellenists are 
 here named, apparently under the supposition that they must 
 have been specially enraged at him as a converted Hellenist, as 
 had already been the case with Stephen, Acts vi. 8, and because 
 afterwards the Hellenists showed themselves especially hostile to 
 Paul. The Apostle himself says nothing at all of this. We see 
 at once that in his journey to Jerusalem he did not intend to 
 remain long there, nor to open up there for himself a field for the 
 preaching of the Gospel. As he regarded himself from the very 
 first as destined to be an Apostle to the Gentiles, he wished to 
 enter on his appointed field of labour in Syria and Cilicia ; but he 
 took Jerusalem on his way thither, in order, as was very natural, 
 to find what his relations with the elder Apostles were to be, now 
 that his mind had so far cleared and he was decided as to the 
 standpoint he should maintain. 
 
 Fourteen years after, whether after that journey which is spoken 
 of, Galatians i. 18, or after his conversion, at any rate after a 
 good number of years had elapsed, the Apostle again went to 
 Jerusalem. Even if we had not the Acts of the Apostles to refer 
 to, which describes his apostolic activity during this time, we 
 should be obliged to assume that he had carried out the purpose 
 with which he had left Jerusalem and gone into Gentile countries. 
 The Apostle was now labouring as an Apostle to the Gentiles; 
 he had converted many Gentiles, and founded many Christian 
 churches ; but the greater the strides were which the Gospel 
 made among the Gentiles, the greater was the importance which 
 the Gentile Christians assumed in proportion to the Jewish Chris- 
 tians, the more doubtful did the Church in Jerusalem become 
 as to whether the Gentiles could directly participate in the 
 Messianic salvation without approaching it through Judaism. 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 113 
 
 The question which had led to no dispute on the occasion of the 
 Apostle's first journey to Jerusalem, probably because the matter 
 then lay in the far distance, was now of the most pressing 
 practical importance. This question was, whether such a Gentile 
 Christianity as the Pauline Christianity had now become, could be 
 recognised and tolerated from a Jewish standpoint ? It could not 
 be denied that in Jerusalem and Judea a considerable party, if 
 not indeed the whole, of the Jewish Christians, was against this 
 recognition. According to Acts xv. 1, as soon as the zeal of the 
 Apostle began to bring forth greatly increasing fruits in Gentile 
 countries, steps began to be taken in Jerusalem in order to put 
 hindrances in his way. It was therefore quite to be expected, from 
 the nature of the case, that after a long interval the Apostle should 
 resolve on a fresh journey to Jerusalem, if only in the interest 
 of his apostolic office among the Gentiles. That this resolution 
 to go to Jerusalem was considered by him to be inspired by an 
 aTTo/caXvi/rf?, a special divine command summoning him thither 
 (Galatians ii. 2), does not in any way set aside the cause above 
 assigned to the journey, but rather shows that this matter was 
 then occupying his mind in a very vivid manner as a thing of 
 pressing moment, and the reason of this must be sought in the 
 position of affairs at that time. He accordingly resolved to 
 journey to Jerusalem and to take counsel with the members of the 
 Church there, and first of all, of course, with the Apostles who 
 might be in the city, upon the principles which he followed in the 
 promulgation of the Gospel, and in virtue of which he considered 
 himself to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. He also resolved to lay 
 his Gospel before them that they might express their opinion on 
 it, and that by a public statement of his views and principles it 
 might appear whether or not he could maintain them, although he 
 himself was not in the slightest degree doubtful or uncertain on 
 the point. For these reasons he made a fresh journey to Jeru- 
 salem. How this journey (Galatians ii. 1) stands related to the 
 journeys to Jerusalem narrated in the Acts of the Apostles has 
 been endlessly treated of in modern times, as if it were an absolute 
 
 VOL. I. ^ 
 
114 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 impossibility to come to a certain result on the subject. The Acts 
 makes the Apostle, after the journey, ix. 26 (which must apparently 
 at least be assumed to be the journey in Galatians i. 1 8), travel 
 twice from Antioch to Jerusalem in company with Barnabas, xi. 30, 
 XV. 2. The Apostle, Gal. ii. 1, seems to speak of a second journey 
 after the first, i. 18 (although ttoKw is not so strong as hevrepov), and 
 here we seem shut up to the journey in Acts xi. 30. But in Acts 
 xi. 30 not the slightest hint is given of such an aim of the journey 
 as the Apostle himself speaks of, whilst that spoken of in xv. 2 
 may be said to have been taken for at least a similar purpose. 
 If we are thus led to take the journey in Acts xv. 2 as being that 
 referred to in Gal. ii. 1 rather than the joirrney in xi. 30, on the 
 other hand, the possibility of going beyond Acts xi. 30 is cut off 
 by the following argument : the Apostle could not, considering his 
 argument in the passage, have passed over the journey mentioned 
 in Acts xi. His object required that no communication with the 
 Apostles which occurred between Gal. i. 18 and ii. 1 should he 
 omitted, else the proof of his teaching being independent of the 
 tuition of the rest of the Apostles, would be defective ; he would 
 have been concealing something which could be alleged against 
 the independence he was asserting, and he would not have given a 
 faithful account of the circumstances of his life affecting this inde- 
 pendence. If the object of the Apostle (Gal. L and ii) be said to 
 be nothing more than to show that he had learnt his doctrine from 
 no man, not even from the Apostles, we might justly rejoin that 
 he seeks to prove more than this — to show by an appeal to facts 
 the independence and originality of his apostolic authority. For 
 this reason it could not have been his intention merely to give a 
 complete enumeration of his journeys to Jerusalem ; he wished to 
 render those events conspicuous which formed the most decided 
 proofs of the independence of his apostolic authority. The first 
 period of his apostolic labours was the only one with regard to 
 which the assurance was necessary that he stood towards the elder 
 Apostles in no such relations that his doctrine could be traced to 
 them. If he had once taught and worked as an Apostle, inde- 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 115 
 
 pendently of the other Apostles, it mattered little whether he was 
 with them in Jerasalem at a later period or not (he might have 
 received his doctrine from them indirectly) ; but the manner in 
 which the rest of the Apostles acknowledged his principles became 
 in this case of the greatest importance. It seems, then, clear that 
 he does not call attention to his journey to Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 1) 
 merely as following another journey before spoken of, but only for 
 the sake of the particular transactions which took place in connec- 
 tion with it. But there stUl remains something behind all this 
 which is not so easUy disposed of. If we fairly consider the 
 words, we must acknowledge (especially if we consider the force 
 of the preposition 8ta used in Gal. ii. 1) the most probable view 
 to be that the Apostle never went at all to Jerusalem during that 
 interval. In Galatians i. 1 9 he is careful to make a certain excep- 
 tion ; and he would not have expressed himself as he does here 
 if he had gone to Jerusalem in the interval. The question 
 then presents itself, whether it is of any special consequence to 
 bring the journeys of which the Apostle here speaks so entirely 
 into harmony with those mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles ? 
 What would be gained by taking the journey Gal. ii. 1 as 
 identical with that in Acts xi. 30, or xv. 2 ? If we take it as 
 identical with xi. 30, we have indeed this advantage, that the 
 journey Gal. ii. 1 follows chronologically on the first, i. 1 8, just as 
 the journey Acts xi. 30,follows the first, ix. 26 ; but this is all, and 
 this external resemblance does not give us any real and substantial 
 identity of the two journeys. Not only is there no further point 
 of resemblance in regard to the cause and object of the journey, to 
 which Acts xi. 30 assigns a completely different aim, but the question 
 may be raised whether the journey Acts xi. 30 is not a mistake, a 
 mere fiction, which is not so very unlikely a supposition in such 
 a narrative as the Acts of the Apostles. If we suppose that the 
 Apostle (Gal. ii. 1) must have been speaking of his second journey, 
 stUl we do not know whether that is the one Acts xi. 30. But 
 suppose, since we find that in regard to Acts xi. 30 everything is 
 so uncertain and undefined, that the journey in the Galatians is 
 
116 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 not the same as this one, and that we must turn to that of Acts 
 XV. 2. The external chronological facts and the internal relations 
 of the affair certainly render this more probable ; but what do we 
 gain ? It is alleged by those who uphold the identity of Gal. ii. 1 
 and Acts xi. 30, that though Gal. ii. 1 and Acts xv. 2 deal with 
 the same question, yet the whole circumstances of the affair in Gal. 
 ii. 1 do not so completely agree with the transactions in Acts xv. 2 
 that we are really justified in upholding the identity of the two 
 journeys. And if the advantage of maintaining the authenticity of 
 both of these journeys can only be secured by giving up Acts xL 
 30, of what use is it to assume that what the Apostle says (GraL 
 ii. 1) regarding his journey to Jerusalem must exactly coincide 
 with the account in Acts xv. 2, sq. ? Eeasoniug from what we have 
 hitherto observed, we have every cause to be distrustful of a state- 
 ment like that of the Acts of the Apostles, which agrees so little 
 with the Apostle's own account ; and the only course possible for 
 us is to ignore the notion of an identity which does not exist, and 
 without further inquiring whether the discrepancies are great or 
 small, to proceed to investigate what relation the two narratives 
 bear to each other. If we endeavour from this point of view to get 
 at the true historical facts by a comparison of the two statements, 
 the following important points of difference appear, as to which no 
 doubt can exist which side we ought to take. 
 
 We find in the Acts of the Apostles an account of a formal 
 public meeting of such a description that its consultations and 
 resolutions have from the earliest times been taken, not without 
 reason, as the utterances of the first Christian Council. Not only 
 were the Apostles and Elders of the Church at Jerusalem gathered 
 together at it, xv. 6, but the members of the Church generally took 
 part in the meeting, xv. 12, 22. There was a question before the 
 assembly which was the subject of debate ; speakers rose who 
 introduced and explained their different views. The meeting was 
 presided over by the head of the Church at Jerusalem, who we are 
 led to suppose acted as president in virtue of that very office; he 
 summed up the debate, suggested the course which was adopted, 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 117 
 
 a formal resolution being passed, and the contents of it, together 
 with some explanations in detail, being sent in a special letter, by 
 men selected for the purpose, to the churches in Antioch, Syria, 
 and Cilicia, as the mind of the Holy Spirit. Of all this the 
 Apostle knows nothing at aU ; on the contrary, he says, as if to 
 contradict such a view of the affair, dved€f//rjv alroh to evayyeXiov 
 Krjpva-cra) ev To'i<: eOveai, kot ISiav Se rot? Bokovcti. Neander has 
 not left quite unnoticed the main point in this passage, which is 
 often overlooked. He remarks, "As Paul in the Epistle to the 
 Galatians speaks only of his private transactions (/caT ISlav) with 
 the three chief Apostles, this would at first sight seem to contra- 
 dict completely the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles; and 
 this contradiction would seem to indicate that the two narratives 
 do not deal with the same facts." Neander, indeed, is also of 
 opinion that " if we assume that before there was any public coimcil 
 in Jerusalem, there may have been many private consultations, the 
 two accounts may thus be seen to supplement each other, as it is 
 self-evident that, before the affair was spoken of in a large assembly, 
 Paul must have come to an understanding with the Apostles with 
 regard to the principles to be kept in view," p. 159, Bohn, 115. 
 This is, of course, conceivable ; but we should have expected to find 
 some mention in the Epistle to the Galatians of such a large 
 assembly. But nothing is said of it, and this is only a new proof 
 of the arbitrary and uncritical nature of such an attempt to har- 
 monise the two accounts. What right have we to suppose that the 
 Apostle is speaking of committee meetings, and that he leaves quite 
 without mention the large meeting which alone could decide the 
 question at issue ? It is quite impossible to take up this position. 
 If we understand the words dvedefirjv avToh to evayyeXiov as 
 referring to the great meeting, yet it would be a thoroughly vague 
 and inaccurate way of stating the fact, in which it would be im- 
 possible to find what, according to the Acts of the Apostles, we 
 ought to find ; and the chief difficulty would still remain, that, on 
 this hypothesis, the principal meeting at which the Apostles must 
 have been present, is put in the background, and these private 
 
118 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 conferences made the most important. But looking at the passage 
 in the right light, we cannot find any such meaning in the words. 
 They do not describe any formal meeting— they are only a vague 
 expression followed immediately by the more definite kut iSiav he 
 Tot? BoKovai. We must take the passage as follows : " I travelled 
 to Jerusalem in order to lay my Gospel before the members of 
 the churches there, and I applied (not as Neander says, to prepare 
 the business by means of private conferences, but in order to go to 
 the root of the matter at once, and take the shortest and direct- 
 est way to a decision) to those who seemed to be the heads of the 
 Church." For this reason the Apostles are here throughout called 
 ol So/toOi/Te?, because they were the highest authority in the eyes 
 of the Church at Jerusalem (the Apostle carefully chooses an 
 expression to suggest that they took this high position only in this 
 relative sense, not absolutely, so that he was at full liberty to reject 
 their authority), and therefore had to be considered in this matter 
 as the chief personages, whose attention to any matter rendered 
 further transactions superfluous. In this passage there is no men- 
 tion of any other meetings than those with the BoKovvTe^, i.e. with 
 James, the president of the church at Jerusalem, and the two 
 Apostles, Peter and John. De Wette, who also finds two different 
 conferences in Galatians ii. 2, can show no ground in the passage 
 itself for his supposition. Had there been two different meetings, 
 we might say that the Acts of the Apostles is silent on the private 
 conference, in accordance with the peculiar characteristics of its 
 manner of narration, which would lead it to deal with the 
 affair as a public one. But as the Apostle himself could not have 
 been silent on so important an event if the public assembly had 
 really taken place as the Acts of the Apostles relates, it foUows 
 from his silence that the Acts of the Apostles first gave a promi- 
 nence to the affair which, according to the Apostle's own report, 
 it could never have possessed. It is only in the narrative of the 
 Acts of the Apostles, and in the interest to which it is devoted, 
 that these transactions take the character of a Synod, which reminds 
 us of the formalities of later times. 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 119 
 
 But the most important point is, tliat the Acts of the Apostles 
 represents the elder Apostles as agreeing with the Apostle Paul 
 with regard to his views and principles in such a manner as we see 
 from the Epistle to the Galatians could never have been the case. 
 According to the Acts of the Apostles, it was merely some 
 members of the CKurch of Jerusalem, who had been converted to 
 the Christian faith from the sect of the Pharisees, who were not 
 willing to receive Gentiles into the Christian community, except 
 under the condition of their submitting to the Mosaic circumcision, 
 XV. 5. But the Apostles themselves were very far from sharing in 
 this view, and supported the proposal made by the Apostle Paul 
 in the most obliging and appreciative manner. The Apostle Peter 
 referred to the conversion of Cornelius, and declared that it was 
 tempting God to lay a yoke on the necks of the disciples (not only 
 be it observed on those of the Gentiles, but of Christians generally), 
 which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear, because they 
 believed that the grace of Christ was the only way of salvation. 
 This then is the conviction expressed, that the Mosaic law was no 
 longer binding as such on Christians, whether Jew or Gentile. The 
 author of the Acts of the Apostles seems purposely to give pre- 
 cedence to the views of the Apostle Peter, as the freest and most 
 advanced, in order to make James, the chief of the assembly and 
 the leader of its deliberations, express a more modified view, which 
 became the deliverance of the Court. For though James agrees 
 essentially with the opinion of the Apostle Peter, and with a similar 
 aim recalls the utterances of the Prophets, according to which the 
 entrance of the Gentries into the service of the true God was an 
 essential part of the building again of the fallen theocracy of David, 
 yet he expressly limited his proposal to the Gentiles who might be 
 converted, and calls the observance of the Mosaic law a burdensome 
 yoke only so far as they are concerned. Yet the Law is considered 
 in the true Pauline spirit as a yoke (comp. Gal. v. 1), and if it were 
 once recognised as too great a burden in the case of the GentUes, 
 no great step would be required to make it appear an unbearable 
 yoke in its very nature. From this point of view it is considered 
 
120 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 by the Apostle Peter.^ If we compare with this statement the 
 narrative which the Apostle himself gives of the whole procedure, 
 everything appears altered. The question was by no means first 
 agitated merely by individual, Pharisaic-minded members of the 
 Church at Jerusalem ; we here see a conflict between the Pauline 
 and the Jewish Christianity. The elder Apostles are by no means 
 outside the conflict ; they are placed at a standpoint from which 
 they had seen and conceived nothing beyond Judaism. There is 
 nothing clearer than that the dispute was concerned first of all 
 with circumcision, with regard to which the Jewish Christian party 
 
 ^ A3 for the words ■yvcixrra arr' alaivos eari ra Qfio iravra to. fpya avTov, whether 
 we take the concluding words tori — avTov for genuine or not (the explanation of 
 the passage which they afford is in any case correct), they must be meant to give 
 point to the argument drawn from the prophetic quotation. What Amos pro- 
 phesied, James says, namely, that the worship of the true God is to be one day 
 universal among mankind, can never really take place unless the Gentiles are 
 freed from the Mosaic law. As the divine prophecy is infaUible, it must be the 
 will of God that the Gentile should be absolved from the law. About the sense 
 of these words there cannot well be any doubt, but we are not quite so sure about 
 the meaning of 21. Neander takes the passage, as do many interpreters, thus (p. 
 119, cf. Schneckenburger, "Uber den Zweok der Apostelgeseh.," p. 23): "As to 
 believers from among the Jews, no such special injunction was needed for them : 
 of these there was now no question ; they knew what as Jews they ought to 
 observe, for in every city where Jews dwelt, the Mosaic law was read every 
 Sabbath in the synagogue." " These words," remarks Neander, " cannot possibly 
 be understood as being intended to give a reason for the laws now given to the 
 Gentiles. This assembly required no reason why they should impose so much, 
 but only why they should impose no more, on the Gentile Christians, and these 
 words do not in the very least supply a reason for this.'' But this reason does 
 not lie so far from the sense of the words as Neander thinks, if we take them in 
 this way ; Moses, i.e. the Mosaic law, has already been long preached in the cities 
 — has been read in the synagogues every Sabbath, but nevertheless there are very 
 few who can bring themselves to accept the law. But now, as the worship of the 
 true God without the fetters of that law is preached, many turn to it, and it is 
 incontestable that the ceremonial law is the only hindrance to the universal spread 
 of the true religion. This explanation is given by Giesler in his essay on Nazarites 
 and Ebionites in Stiindlin und Tzschirner's Arohiv fUr Kirchengeschichte, vol. iv. 
 312. (And the author adopted it in the first edition of this work. — Ed.) But 
 it is doubtless the most simple plan to understand 21 as supplying a reason for 
 sending a letter to the Gentile Christians, and requiring such an dTrt'xecrflai from 
 them. Such a claim, James says, so ancient a worship as the Mosaic has a good 
 right to make. The more generally and regularly the Mosaic law became known, 
 the more clearly did its incontestable authority become manifest. 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 121 
 
 maintained that the Gentiles could not take part in the Messianic 
 salvation, except on the condition that they would submit to ciiv 
 cumcision. But circumcision included in itseK the whole of 
 Judaism — it was the hardest condition which could he laid on the 
 Gentiles ; by it they would be forced to abjure their heathenism 
 and become Jews, and lay themselves under an obligation to 
 observe all the requirements of Judaism. The question thus was 
 whether the Gentiles could become Christians directly as Gentiles, 
 or only through the mediation of Judaism, by first becoming Jews. 
 The Apostle, in order to show the energy with which he opposed 
 this demand, says that " even Titus had not been compelled to be 
 circumcised," i.e. he was not actually obliged to be circumcised, 
 though this compulsion was sought to be put upon him : the whole 
 context shows that when the Apostle took him to Jerusalem, the 
 great point was to resist the pressure that was pu\pp him in this 
 direction, and we cannot say with De Wette that this would imply 
 that such a demand had been made by the Apostles, and would 
 thus contradict both the apologetic aim of this narrative and the 
 spirit of the transactions and resolutions in Acts xv. Gal. ir. cannot 
 be interpreted in the light of Acts xv. ; and as for the apologetic 
 aim of the account, we cannot understand the great earnestness 
 with which the Apostle here defends the cause of his Gospel, till we 
 suppose that he had not to do merely with the wapeiaaKToi, yjrevB- 
 dSeX^oi but with the Apostles themselves. Why should he have 
 gone to Jerusalem himself ? why did he so especially wish to treat 
 of the matter with the Apostles, if he had not had good grounds 
 for supposing that the Apostles in Jerusalem were by no means 
 ignorant of the attempts made by the irapeia-aKToi ifreuSaSe\(f)oi ? 
 The course of the transactions shows in what relation the Apostles 
 stood with regard to the principles of these false brethren. They 
 are themselves the opponents against whom the Apostle contends 
 in refuting these principles. From his assertion that he did not 
 submit to compulsion in regard to the circumcision of Titus, we see 
 that the efforts at compulsion were concentrated upon this case, 
 and the reason for this can only have been that he, an uncircum- 
 
122 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 cised Gentile, was actually the companion of the Apostle. He was 
 to be the first to be circumcised, and it seemed that this demand 
 made in the midst of those who advocated circumcision could 
 scarcely be withstood. But the Apostle seems to have taken Titus 
 with him to Jerusalem, in order that a clear and definite case 
 might be presented for the trial of the question ; that the strife of 
 principles might be viewed in its practical bearing, or that th^ 
 Gentile Titus, being actually present, might give him an accurate 
 measure of his power to withstand the Judeeo-Christian demands. 
 There is no trace in the Epistle to the Galatians of any comphance 
 on the part of the Apostle, and that which, according to the Acts 
 of the Apostles, was done with the most willing agreement of the 
 elder Apostles, was, according to the assurances of the Apostle 
 himself, the result of the most powerful opposition, the most 
 energetic repulsion of the most decided pressure. Not for a 
 moment even, says the Apostle, did I give place to them by the 
 subjection required of me, in order that the truth of the Gospel, 
 the principles of true Christianity as freed from Judaism, might be 
 upheld and carried on in the churches founded by me.^ The 
 
 1 Nothing can be more absurd than the explanation given, not merely by a 
 Tertulliau, u. Marc. v. 3, but even by commentators of the most modern times, 
 of the passage Galatians ii. 4, according to which Trcpier/xij^;) must be added to 
 6ia 8e — ■^ev8a8e\(f>ovs, and Titus therefore must have been circumcised, if not 
 by compulsion, still out of tender regard to the false brethren. If Titus were 
 circumcised for the sake of the false brethren, how can the Apostle say without 
 the greatest contradiction that he "did not give place by subjection, no, not for 
 an hour " ? The affairs of the Gentile Christians could not be separated from those 
 of the Jewish Christians ; he would have surrendered his principles if Titus had 
 been circumcised. That his resistance was one of principle is testified by the 
 emphatic oiSe, ii. 5. How can such passages as these be misunderstood ! and 
 how can the historical inquiry into Primitive Christianity be founded on such 
 misapprehensions? The broken language employed by the Apostle, verse 4, is 
 certainly hard to interpret ; but as far as we can gather the sense, it is this : — 
 it was the false brethren who raised this dispute about circumcision, and obliged 
 me to take this decisive step towards the maintenance of my Gospel principles. 
 The irapeio'aKTOL ^€vbdbe\(j)0L are those rives KareXdovrts diro rfjs *lovbaias of 
 whom the Acts speaks, xv. 1. They were thus called by the Apostle because 
 they came to Antioch as members of the church at Jerusalem, Gal. ii. 4, in order 
 to investigate on the spot the report which had reached Jerusalem, that in 
 Antioch the Mosaic law was completely shaken off, and then that they might 
 
Chap. V.] TBANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 123 
 
 Apostles themselves wrought no change in my views and principles, 
 least of all by confronting me as the BoKovvTe<; elvai ti, as if this 
 gave them an authority to which I as well as others was obliged 
 humbly to bow and submit myself. " The question is not," says the 
 Apostle, with a well-reasoned consciousness of his evangelical 
 freedom, " what a man's outward position or personal authority is ; 
 even if he were an Apostle and chief of the church at Jerusalem, 
 it makes no matter to me ! A merely outward condition of this 
 kind can be of no importance to me. God looketh not at the out- 
 ward and personal. The point was simply what arguments they 
 had to bring forward against me ; but as little on this ground as 
 on the other did I find any reason for deserting the principles on 
 which I had acted up to that time. For they brought nothing 
 against me that I was forced to concede to them, or that I could 
 appropriate as a correction or addition to my views. So little was 
 this the case, that on the contrary they were obliged to acknowledge 
 how well grounded and reasonable my views and modes of action 
 
 immediately seek to enforce their own stringent Jewish principles. What the 
 Apostle means by the insinuating nature of these people, which he expresses in 
 the phrases Trap? iVaxTot i^fvSab. and irapfia-ijKBov, refers simply to their coming 
 as Jewish Christians into a Gentile Christian Church like that of Antioch, in order 
 to introduce into that Church certain principles which, until then, were unknown 
 in it, and which seemed to be in opposition to Gospel truth. The whole point of 
 view would be altered if, as is generally done by interpreters, we take the Apostle 
 as having considered these persons to be wapda: ^evSaS. not merely in reference 
 to the church at Antioch, but to the Christian Church generally, because they 
 were enemies of Christian freedom. The Christian freedom which they opposed 
 existed only in Antioch ; nothing was known of it in Jerusalem, where, on the 
 contrary, the Mosaic law was held binding on Christians in all its force. There- 
 fore it is not to be overlooked that these were interfering and false brethren only 
 in their relation to the church at Antioch, but not to that at Jerusalem ; to this 
 latter they belonged, and in it their zeal for the law would only be reckoned as 
 a proof of their orthodoxy. Here first in the history a decided difference presents 
 itself between Jewish and Gentile Christianity; what was looked upon in Antioch 
 as a servitude in direct opposition to the idea of Christian freedom, was considered 
 in Jerusalem as true and genuine Christianity. We also see undoubtedly that 
 this question was first touched upon in Jerusalem at this time. Therefore it is 
 an incorrect remark of De Wette's, that ' ' the Jewish-Christians who came to 
 Antioch went later on to Jerusalem itself." Whence could they have come to 
 Antioch if not from Jerusalem ? and where else could the principles which they 
 maintained have prevailed but at Jerusalem ! 
 
124 LIFE AND WORK OF FAUL. [Part I. 
 
 were. Instead, therefore, of my Gospel of Gentile Christianity 
 being, as was imagined on the Judaeo-Christian side, quite un- 
 grounded and untenable as compared with Jewish Christianity, its 
 independence was fully acknowledged." But this acknowledgment 
 was by no means made at the beginning : the Apostle obtained it 
 by means of argument, the chief points of which he shortly indicates, 
 Gal. ii. 7, etc. His enemies came to be convinced that the Gospel of 
 uncircumcision was confided to him, as that of circumcision had been 
 to Peter, or, in other words, that there existed not only a Jewish 
 Christianity, but also a Gentile Christianity, independent of Judaism. 
 Thus they were brought to acknowledge that the Gentiles might 
 have a share in the Messianic salvation directly, without first 
 becoming Jews. In the complete self-assurance of his standpoint, 
 the Apostle places himself in opposition to Peter, so that we have 
 before us man against man, teacher against teacher, one Gospel 
 against another, one apostolic office against another, and the argu- 
 ment on which the Apostle relies in this encounter is the decided 
 actual success to which he is able to refer. The Apostle says (ii. 
 8, in the words o yap ev€piyri<7a<; lierptp ei,<; airoffToXriv tt}? irepiTOjirfi 
 evripyrjffe Koi, e/xol eU ra edvrj), that he could not have accomplished 
 so great a success as an Apostle among the Gentiles, if God, to 
 whose operation this success must be referred, had not willed to 
 establish by it the fact that there was in reality an evayyeXiov t^? 
 dKpo/3va-Tia<;. The reality of the animating principle is concluded 
 teleologicaUy from the reality of the consequences. The meaning of 
 the Apostle's words is, — "I am in fact the Apostle of the Gentiles, 
 and could never have converted the Gentiles to the Gospel if I 
 had not grounded my Gospel on the foundation of freedom from 
 the law ; who then will maintain against me that this form of the 
 Gospel has not an equal right of existence ? indeed it could not 
 have had any existence at all if it had not been the will of God 
 that it should exist." In this manner the Apostle appeals to the 
 results of his efforts in the cause of Christianity as a proof that he 
 was a true and genuine Apostle of Christ. In the same sense he 
 speaks in the following words of the grace given him, understanding 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 125 
 
 by it the divine principle lying at the root of his apostolic activity, 
 virithout which supposition these consequences themselves would 
 he quite inexplicable. The Jewish Apostles could not but acknow- 
 ledge this ; they could not deny the facts, and neither could they 
 see in them the operation of an ungodly, unchristian principle. 
 They gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, 
 recognised them as equally accredited companions with themselves 
 in the work of the Gospel ; and by so doing promised to put no 
 hindrance in their way, even if they continued as hitherto to spread 
 the Gospel among the Gentiles without imposing the law on them. 
 So far did the agreement then extend : yet it is not to be thought 
 that a full reconciliation took place at this time between the opposing 
 views and principles. The Koivcovia was a separation as well as an 
 agreement ; the agreement was simply that the one party should 
 go et? TO, idvn], the other et? Tr)v irepiTOjjuqv, i.e. the Jewish Apostles 
 could really allege nothing against the principles on which Paul 
 founded his evangelical labours, and were obliged so far to recognise 
 them ; but this recognition was a mere outward one ; they left it to 
 him to work further on these principles in the cause of the Gospel 
 among the Gentiles ; but they would have nothing to do with these 
 principles for themselves. The apostolic sphere of operation there- 
 fore became divided into two parts ; there was an evayyeKiov Tri<i 
 •jrepirofiT]';, and an evayyeXtov t^? aKpo^varlat; ; an awocTToXT} eh 
 rrjv TrepiTOfiriv, and an a-rroaToKr] et? to, eOvr] : in one the Mosaic 
 law had force, in the other it had none, and these two systems 
 siflaply co-existed without being in any way harmonised.^ 
 
 * If we place before us the facts as they really took place, how striking does the 
 conversion of Cornelius appear, to which Peter refers at the opening of his dis- 
 course at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 7). Peter is made to say, " Men and brethren, 
 ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles 
 by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. And God, who 
 knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he 
 did unto us ; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by 
 faith." Who can help detecting here a consistent adherence to a plan on the part 
 of the author, and who can fail to see the necessity of meeting the statements in 
 the Acts in the same logical sequence in which they are made ? Just as little as 
 Peter could have spoken at Jerusalem in so Pauline a manner as the author of the 
 Acts of the Apostles represents him to have done, could he have appealed to the 
 
126 
 
 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 The standpoint which the elder Apostles occupied over against 
 Paul cannot be sufficiently kept before us. It is as clear as 
 possible that at this time at least, fourteen years after the con- 
 version of the Apostle Paul, their circle of vision did not extend 
 beyond Judaism. They knew nothing at all of a direct Gentile 
 Christianity, it existed without any co-operation from their side; 
 they had still to be brought to recognise it by Paul, and their 
 recognition appeared entirely as a concession forced from them. 
 They could do no otherwise, for they were not in a condition to 
 resist the strength of circumstances and the overpowering personal 
 influence of Paul. Bat they only consented not to oppose the 
 Pauline Christianity, which with regard to their principles they 
 should in consistency have done ; they stipulated also that they 
 should be allowed to hold themselves passive towards it, or in one 
 word to ignore it. As the matter then stood, only two alternatives 
 presented themselves. Either the Jewish Apostles agreed with 
 
 transactions witli Cornelius. The one cannot be separated from the other. But 
 if he cannot have appealed to what took place with Cornelius, what security have 
 we that the conversion of Cornelius, as the Acts of the Apostles relates it, really 
 took place ? Is it not clear that the same motive from which the author makes 
 the Apostle Peter refer to such an occurrence, may have led him to insert the 
 story in his work as he has done ? He who represents Peter as saying what he 
 could not under the circumstances have said, raises a prejudice against himself, 
 and gives rise to the suspicion that in other points also the statement may not be 
 very strictly historical. Peter is made to acknowledge that liberal view of the 
 Mosaic law and the principles dependent on it, not only when the pressure of 
 circumstances and the imposing presence of the Apostle Paul left him but little 
 choice. He is made to do this long before, and in a manner which showed that 
 he did so, not under the authority of any other man, but through the immediate 
 impulse of the di vine Spirit. In this way not only is Peter's apostolic indepen- 
 dence secured, but those more liberal views on which the Pauline preaching of the 
 Gospel was based are invested with divine sanction even before the Apostle Paul 
 himself entered on the sphere of his labours. How thoroughly it is the intention 
 of the author of the Acts of the Apostles to found upon the conversion of Cornelius, 
 and to make the chief idea of Pauline Christianity appear to have been implied 
 in it, is shown also in the thought contained in Acts xv. 9, " And put no difference 
 between us and them, purifying our hearts by faith." That things held to be 
 unclean might not be unclean, is set forth in the conversion of Cornelius and the 
 vision accompanying it, and a^ already, x. 43, the participation in the forgiveness 
 of sins is made to depend upon faith in Jesus, so, xv. 9, the Pauline TriVrts is set 
 up as the true principle of the relation which enjoys God's favour. 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 127 
 
 the Apostle Paul in the principles of his evayje\iov t^? dKpo- 
 ^va-Tia<;, or not. If they agreed with him, they ought to have 
 considered it a duty to work with him for the conversion of the 
 Gentiles, else they would not be carrying out their apostolic office 
 to the fuU extent to which they knew it ought to be carried out ; 
 they would have recognised theoretically as true and right what 
 by their practical behaviour they declared objectionable. If they 
 did not agree with him, they ought not to have yielded as much as 
 they really did; they could not consider it as a matter of no 
 moment, that with regard to the Gentiles the principle should be 
 promulgated that salvation could be obtained without Judaism, 
 without the observance of the Mosaic law. They could not 
 recognise this principle without also recognising an obligation to 
 work not merely for the evayyeXiov t-^? Trepjro/ii^?, but also for 
 the evayyeXlov ttj? aKpo^varla<i. They did not do this ; and as 
 we must hold them to have been sincere in the concession made to 
 the Apostle Paul, we must conclude that they were in an unsettled 
 state regarding these views and opinions, which necessarily 
 involved them in contradictions and inconsequences. They 
 could bring nothing forward in refutation of the principles and 
 facts which the Apostle Paul made use of against them, and stiU 
 they could not free themselves from the limited standpoint of 
 Judaism on which they had hitherto stood. As they had now 
 made a concession by giving the right hand of fellowship, nothing 
 else remained than to assume as indifferent a position as possible 
 towards Pauline Christianity. We have here presented to us, with 
 tolerable clearness, the origin of those two sections of Jewish 
 Christianity, with which we become more nearly acquainted in the 
 history of the succeeding period. There grew up withia Jewish 
 Christianity itself a strict and a liberal party. The stricter one 
 wished 'to impose on Gentile Christians also the general principle 
 that there was no salvation apart from Judaism, which all Jewish 
 Christians held alike, and this to its full significance and practical 
 issues. This class of Jewish Christians could not remain in- 
 different to the Pauline Christianity, it was forced to fight against 
 
128 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 it, to insist that if the Gentiles were to be called to a participation 
 in the salvation of the Messianic kingdom — and they could not 
 object to this ; it had in fact been done — it must be on the con- 
 dition that they should not be pronounced free from the observance 
 of the law. They saw perfectly well that if the necessity of the 
 law was not recognised in the case of the Gentile Christians, the 
 absolute importance of Judaism was at an end. They were there- 
 fore the declared opponents of the Apostle Paul, and introduced 
 themselves into all the churches founded by him, that after he had 
 accomplished their conversion to the Gospel they might foUow 
 with the condition without which, they represented, it never 
 should have taken place, and must be perfectly fruitless, namely, 
 the imposition of the law. The more liberal party was in principle 
 in harmony with the stricter one, — only after the concessions made 
 by the Jewish Apostles to the Apostle Paul, they could not oppose 
 him practically in the same manner ; they renounced the carrying 
 out of their principles^ which consistency might have demanded, 
 and limited their operations to Judaism. We cannot but think 
 that the Jewish Apostles were at the head of this party ; but the 
 other, which, as the strict and consistent one, felt itself in no way 
 hampered as to its practical activity by any vagueness of opinion, 
 must from the very nature of the case have been destined to grow 
 into greater historical importance. In the period immediately 
 succeeding these transactions at Jerusalem, it became apparent 
 how the two parties were related to each other, and Jaow one had 
 got the upper hand of the other. 
 
 In the closest connection with these party relations stands that 
 scene between Paul and Peter at Autioch, which from the earhest 
 times bore such evil notoriety, and is so important in helping us to 
 determine the standpoint of the two parties. If the elder Apostles 
 had been firmly and clearly convinced of the merely relative value 
 of the law and its worthlessness in comparison with the grace of 
 the Gospel, how could Peter have been guilty of such double deahng 
 towards the Gentile Christians in Antioch ? He acted thus, as we 
 learn, from a timid regard to the Jerusalem Jewish Christians who 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 129 
 
 visited Antiocli. That visit is of itself enough to show that this 
 resolution at Jerusalem cannot have been taken as the Acts of 
 the Apostles represents it to have been, with the general consent of 
 the whole community. How could the same Peter have so acted 
 whom the Acts of the Apostles had shown shortly before as speak- 
 ing in so decidedly Pauline a manner, and this indeed in Jerusalem 
 itself before the whole Church, a few members of which afterwards 
 proved sufiacient to excite anxious timidity in the Apostle's mind ? 
 How striking and abrupt is here the contrast between Paul and 
 Peter ! How open and unsparing is Paul's censure ! How severe 
 and vehement his speech ! How keenly he exposes the contradiction 
 in which Peter found himself involved through his irresolution ! 
 The Acts of the Apostles indeed says nothing of aU this. In a 
 representation deviating so much from the truth as this account 
 of the transactions at Jerusalem, there could indeed be no place 
 for a scene like this ; and hence not only does this discrepancy 
 between the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians 
 become more apparent, but it also becomes indubitable that the 
 silence of the Acts of the Apostles with regard to so public an 
 occurrence is an intentional one. Where we expect to find the dis- 
 pute between Peter and Paul mentioned, the Acts of the Apostles 
 only speaks of a Trapo^va-fio'; between Paul and Barnabas, and even 
 this quarrel is assigned to another cause than that spoken of Gal 
 ii. 13. If this work feels it necessary to make some mention of a 
 quarrel which happened at this time, why is it silent as to the 
 chief cause of the quarrel from which certainly even this -rrap- 
 o^va-fio<; arose ? This is for the same reason for which it did not 
 dare to mention the name of Titus, who was mixed up with these 
 events, in the list of the friends and companions of the Apostle.^ 
 
 ^ Instead of the unoiroumcised Titus, the circumcised Timothy is spoken of 
 again and again. That the same Paul who in Jerusalem resisted with all his 
 might the proposal to circumcise Titus for the sake of the Jews and Jewish 
 Christians, should soon after himself have caused Timothy to be circumcised from 
 regard to the same persons, Acts xvi. 3, belongs undoubtedly to the simply 
 incredible side of the Acts of the A postles. This act would have been the very same 
 denial of principle on the part of Paul. That Timothy had up to this time never 
 
 VOL. I. I 
 
130 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I, 
 
 We see clearly that it wishes to throw a concealing veil over all 
 these occurrences in Jerusalem and Antioch, and by the mention of 
 the less important quarrel between Paul and Barnabas, to divert 
 attention from the chief fact and chief subject of the dispute. 
 Nothing could be more abhorrent to its apologetic and conciliatory 
 tendency than the renewal of a subject which made the Apostle 
 Paul appear in so unfavourable a light in the eyes of the Jewish 
 Christians, — an event of which the offensive impression (as we 
 gather from many quarters) operated for so long a period after its 
 occurrence, that even at that time every effort must have been 
 made to soften it as much as possible, and to cause the whole 
 affair to be forgotten.^ This treatment made it possible at 
 
 been circumcised, although his mother was a Jewess, would seem to indicate that 
 he chose to be reckoned as a Gentile, like his father. If he were now circumcised 
 as a Gentile, and by the wish of the Apostle, in order that he might not be any 
 longer looked on as a Gentile, as his father was, Acts xvi. 3, what coald 
 either Jews or GentOes think on the subject, but that it was a proof that circum- 
 cision was not so indifferent a thing in the Apostle's eyes as he had once considered 
 it ? This deed performed on Timothy stands in the most evident contradiction, not 
 only to Gal. ii. 3, but to Gal. iii. 28 and v. 11. Even if the submission to cir- 
 cumcision on the part of Timothy was a completely voluntary act, as Olshausen 
 takes care to maintain, the Apostle would never have allowed it to be performed 
 on his companion, as by so doing he would have exposed himself to the merited 
 reproach of want of principle, and inconsequence of reasoning. Whatever be the 
 truth as to the circumcision of Timothy, the XajSiv nepierefiev airov. Acts xvi. 3, 
 cannot be ascribed to the Apostle. 
 
 1 How Paul is reproached in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, 17, 18, for hav- 
 ing said of Peter, Gal. ii. 11, that he was KOTfyvaxTfievos ! Ei KaTfyvatrfiaiov ju 
 Xfyetr, 6eoO toO aTVOKaXiij^avTos jxoi rbv XpitTTov KaTrjyopfis Koi tov tVi aTTOKoki^a 
 fiaKapia-avTos pe KaTa(j)epeis. Peter says this to the Magus Simon ; but that the 
 Apostle Paul is meant, there is no doubt. In the writing from Peter to James, 
 which stands at the head of the Homilies, it is said, Ttvh ano rav iBvmv to 5i' 
 epov mpipov aTrfSoKipaaav Krjpvypa, tov if^Bpov avdpdnrov avopov Tiva rai 0Xva- 
 paSri npotrriKapfvoi SiSaa-KoKiav. Kai raira tn pov ncpiovros fTTexeiprjirav rms 
 TTOiKiXtas Tia-lv ipprjvelats Toiis ipovs Xdyoui peTaa-)(ripaTl(fiu els ttjv tov ko/iou 
 KaToKva-iv. i>s Kai ipov ovTto piv (j>povovi'Tos prj ck Trapprja-ias Be Krjpvira-ovTOS, 
 oirep dnelrj. This also refers to Gal. ii. 12, only the affair is reversed. Instead of 
 the assertion of Paul, that Peter really agreed with his (Paul's) view of the Mosaic 
 law, and that it had been a mere vTvoicpiais in Peter to deny his true opinions out of 
 fear of the Jewish Christians, we here find Peter protesting against the idea that 
 for want of Trapprjcria he conceded more than his real opinions warranted in the way 
 of the abolition of the law ; this, he says, is a wilful perversion of his words. 
 
Chap. V.] TBANSACTI0N8 AT JERUSALEM. 131 
 
 any rate to excuse the harsh attitude of the Apostle towards 
 Judaism, on the score that the event took place in the first period 
 after his conversion, in which sense Tertullian says, c. Marc. I. 
 20, "Paulus adhuc in gratia rudis — ferventer, ut neophytus, 
 adversus judaismum aliquid in conversatione reprehendendum 
 existimavit." On the same grounds the modern interpreters, 
 in their chronological discussions on the journey of the Apostle, 
 Gal. ii. 1, place this at an earlier date, and take it as identical 
 with the second journey in the Acts, that at xi. 30. They also 
 appeal to the fact that the behaviour of the Apostle towards 
 Judaism was afterwards much milder and more yielding. But 
 what proof have we of this, if we do not get it from the Acts of the 
 Apostles, whose contradiction of the Epistle to the Galatians is 
 sufficiently evident ? "What the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians ix. 20, 
 " that unto the Jews he became a Jew, that he might gain the 
 Jews," can certainly not be taken in a sense which would involve 
 his denying essential principles. He can only have been a Jew 
 unto the Jews in the same manner in which he was a Gentile to 
 the Gentiles. The most certain proof that the Apostle continued 
 in later times to hold the same views, and to regard his relation to 
 the elder Apostles in the same light, is given by the Epistle to the 
 Galatians itself, for how else could he express what he thought of 
 the occurrences at Antioch in such a manner, in a letter written not 
 so short a time afterwards ? Not the least word is said in mitiga- 
 tion of the impression which must have been made by the long 
 dispute between the two Apostles, which we are bound to suppose 
 still continued at the time when the Apostle wrote. 
 
 What the Acts of the Apostles mentions as the result of the 
 apostolic conference in Jerusalem is also completely at variance 
 with the Apostle's own accounts. On the motion of James it was 
 resolved, as is related in the Acts, that the Gentiles should " abstain 
 from eating flesh offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, 
 and from fornication." James, as has already been remarked, stood 
 in a certain sense between the two chief parties, between the 
 Pharisaic-minded zealots of the law on one side, and Barnabas, 
 
132 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 Paul, and Peter on the other. His policy was that the Gentile 
 Christians should neither be entirely freed from all regard to the 
 Mosaic law, nor yet be subject to that which to those among them 
 who were willing to accept Judaism always appeared as the 
 heaviest burden of the law, and therefore must have been the chief 
 obstacle, the greatest hindrance to the Gospel among the Gentiles, 
 namely, circumcision. This resolution formally entered into by 
 the whole assembly, was sent to the churches in Antioch, Syria, 
 and Cilicia, in the shape of a missive drawn up in the name of the 
 Apostles, presbyters, and brethren of the Church at Jerusalem, by 
 the hands of delegates chosen from the midst of the Church at 
 Jerusalem, accompanied to Antioch by Paul and Barnabas. The 
 author of the Acts of the Apostles dwells purposely on the im- 
 portance of this resolution. It was passed, say the letters, with a 
 view of quieting men's minds, and chasing away the anxious fears 
 which were spread abroad by some who clung to circumcision and 
 the strict observance of the Mosaic law. On this account it is 
 expressly remarked what lively joy was awakened in Antioch by 
 the arrival of the resolutions and the agreement as reported by the 
 delegates between the Church at Jerusalem and that at Antioch. 
 The author of the Acts of the Apostles refers again with evident in- 
 tention to the existence of this decree. When not long afterwards 
 Paul and Silas entered on a second missionary journey and visited 
 the churches founded during the first, they " delivered unto them," 
 Acts xvi. 4, " the decrees ordained by the Apostles and Elders at 
 Jerusalem, that they might thereby rule themselves " (TrapeBiSovv 
 avTol<; (fivXaacrecv ra Bojfiara ra KeKpifieva vtto twv air.), and the 
 consequence of this was that the "churches were established in 
 the faith, and increased in number daily." So beneficially did 
 this decree operate in the cause of the Gospel, so essentially did 
 the further spread of the Gospel among the Gentiles depend on it. 
 As the affair is here represented, the transactions at Jerusalem 
 and the decree made there at that time, mark a very important 
 epoch in the early history of Christianity : the critical question, 
 whether Christianity should be subordinate to Judaism or not, 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 133 
 
 came to demand a solution, and was decided in favour of Chris- 
 tianity. Should we not expect that the Apostle Paul would not 
 have left so weighty a decree wholly unmentioned in his Epistle 
 to the Galatians, when speaking of the very same transactions, and 
 with reference to the question what understanding had been 
 arrived at on each side ? The condition of the Koivwvia was, Xva 
 ij/iet? fieveii to. edvt), avrol Be et? tt)v irepiTo/njv — would not this 
 have been an opportunity of mentioning the elements of harmony 
 and mutual understanding which existed between the dvoaToiXfi 
 TreptTo/i^? and the airouToKii et? ra eOvrj, instead of placing them 
 in such harsh opposition as is done by the words above quoted ? 
 But we find in the Apostle's writings not the slightest indication 
 that any such important decree had been made at that time, but 
 rather the most decided assurances to the contrary. The Apostle 
 says expressly, ii. 10, i^ovov twv -Trrayav Iva /jLvrjfioveiiwfiev. The 
 only condition which was attached to the independence of the 
 Apostle in the sphere of his apostolic labours was then the /jlvthmo- 
 veveiv Toiv irr<i>')^S>v, which it is impossible to understand otherwise 
 than as a conciliatory promise which the Apostle gave from love 
 of peace, that he would engage to support the poor church at 
 Jerusalem by contributions which he would collect in the churches 
 of the Gentile Christians ; and this, says the Apostle, he was " also 
 forward to do," as we indeed find he was from his Epistles. But 
 does not this i^vov exclude aU. other stipulations ? And how 
 comes the Apostle to assert this promise of contributing to the 
 poor, which after all was quite beside the main object of these 
 deliberations, to have been the only condition that was made, when 
 far more important conditions were made which bore directly upon 
 the great matter under discussion, namely, the obligation of the 
 Mosaic law ? Let it not be said that the Kotvcovia spoken of here 
 was merely one concluded between Paul and Barnabas on one side, 
 and James, Peter, and John on the other, and that among aU these, 
 according to the Acts of the Apostles, no difference existed, so 
 that there was no reason here for mentioning those other conditions 
 which the Apostle must yet be held as implying : it has been 
 
134 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Pakt I, 
 
 already shown that one of the chief differences in the two accounts 
 is that the parties who are described as engaged in the dispute are 
 not the same. There can be no longer any idea of a reconciliation 
 between the two accounts, but the difference already shown rather 
 grows wider. We find a private conference instead of a public 
 assembly, and a dispute between the Apostles themselves, instead of 
 between the Apostles and the Pharisaic-minded members of the 
 Church at Jerusalem; and now we cannot find the terms to the 
 decree which, according to the Acts of the Apostles, was arrived at, 
 and this for the natural reason that according to the Epistle to the 
 Galatians such a decree never existed at all. That it is not acci- 
 dentally omitted, with all that belongs to it, is incontestably shown 
 in the Epistle to the Galatians, as also in the rest of the Apostle's 
 Epistles. In the Epistle to the Galatians the Apostle contends 
 with the Judaising opponents, who were desirous of imposing 
 circumcision on the Galatian Church as a necessary condition of 
 salvation. Gal. v. 1. In order to do this the Apostle explains his 
 entire relation to the aTroa-vokyj rj;? ■n-epiTOfj.T]';. What would 
 forward this more than an appeal to the decree ? How could 
 these opponents be better refuted than by a decree made in Jeru- 
 salem itself, through which circumcision had been declared to be 
 a burden as unbearable as it was unnecessary ? We may even go 
 so far as to say that if he referred to this transaction at aU, it was 
 incumbent on the Apostle not to leave such a decree entirely 
 unnoticed in a case on which it so especially bore. He could 
 not be silent on it without prejudicing the truth of his narrative 
 as well as his case against his opponents, as his statement would 
 then be chargeable with keeping back the very gist of the whole 
 history. What jnfluence then can such a decree, which must have 
 been of so great importance for the Gentile Christians, ever have 
 had, if no use at all was made of it in a case like this, in which it 
 was so eminently fitted to maintain the ground already won ? Just 
 the same reasoning may be applied to the other provisions of 
 this pretended decree. 
 
 The Apostle is silent in a perfectly inexplicable manner on 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 135 
 
 another point, where we might expect not only a mention, but an 
 express application of the decree. It is known how often in his 
 Epistles he speaks from various reasons of eating flesh offered to 
 idols. The matter in itself is neither right nor wrong to him, but 
 he insists on the obligation of abstaining out of regard to the 
 weaker Christian brethren. So the Apostle declares especially in 
 1 Cor. viii. concerning the elBo>Xd0vTa, about which we can perceive 
 he has been questioned by that part of the Corinthian Church to 
 which his Epistle is specially addressed. This inquiry would not 
 have been put, if, as the Acts of the Apostles implies, these decrees 
 had been meant to be deposited in every church of Gentile Chris- 
 tians, and if their observance was to be the condition of the 
 Christian communion existing between the Gentile and Jewish 
 Christians. But the Apostle himself, although he might be in- 
 different to the question as to the eating of meat offered to idols on 
 its own merits, and for his own person, could not have declared 
 his indifference under such circumstances as these, because the 
 observance of a positive command given for such a purpose could 
 never have been a matter of indifference, It cannot be doubted 
 that the Acts of the Apostles intends to convey the idea that all 
 these commands were to be observed for the future in aU the 
 Gentile Christian churches. According to xv. 20 (compared with 
 ver. 22 and with ver. 28, 29), ItriaTetKai avrot? (edveai) tov atrixecr- 
 6ai airo rav aXoay., it was resolved that it was indispensable that 
 these conditions should be submitted to. Neither can we say that 
 they were made merely in reference to the churches in Antioch, 
 Syria, and CUicia, because they were troubled at the time by these 
 Judaising zealots, for the express remark of the author, xvi. 4, that 
 they were delivered for observance to the churches in Derbe and 
 Lystra by Paul himself on his arrival at those places, evidently 
 implies that the same course was to be followed in all the new 
 churches. It was on the same journey, moreover, that Paul arrived 
 at Corinth and founded the church there. Neander also finds it 
 worthy of remark (p. 260), that in regard to the disputes in the 
 Christian church at Corinth, about the eating of meat offered to 
 
130 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 idols, the Apostle did not appeal to the decree of the apostolic 
 assembly at Jerusalem in order to establish the rules for the 
 Gentile Christians with regard to this sacrificial meat. But with 
 reference to this subject, as well as to the question of why he did not 
 appeal to the authority of those decrees in dealing with the Jewish 
 Christians who wished to enforce circumcision on the Gentiles, 
 Neander explains, that it is characteristic of Paul that he does not 
 appeal to a positive outward command, to a i/o'/xo?, but to the inner 
 law in the conscience of the believer, to what the spirit of the 
 Gospel itself demanded. Neander must himself have felt how 
 unsatisfactory this explanation is, for he remarks further, " It seems, 
 although the observance of this decree was firmly established by 
 the Apostles in Palestine, that beyond Palestine it had but very 
 Little authority. As this decree depended on a mutual agreement, 
 it must follow that as one of the parties, the Jewish Christians, 
 did not fulfil the conditions, since they refused to acknowledge the 
 uncircumcised as brethren, the agreement ceased to have any 
 binding force for the Gentile Christians, who, through the observ- 
 ance of this decree, would have been brought into nearer communion 
 with the Jewish Christians." Neander here grants so much, that 
 from what he concedes we have simply to draw the obvious conclu- 
 sion. How did it happen that these decrees were of so little weight 
 out of Palestine, the district for which alone they were designed, 
 that the Jewish Christians did not fulfil the conditions, and indeed 
 never had fulfilled them from the beginning ? For if those Tivh 
 airo 'la/ca^ov could appear in such open and decided opposition 
 to the decrees so soon after the council at Jerusalem, and that too 
 at Antioch, in the very church for which the decrees were ordainedj 
 we can only conclude how little weight they had ever had at all. 
 And if they depended on a mutual agreement, how comes it that 
 there was never any remonstrance raised by the Gentile Christians, 
 the party injured by the violation ? If we conclude it to have 
 been in favour of the Gentile Christians that the obligation to 
 observe these decrees was removed, we cannot see what interest 
 could ever have been served by concluding such an agreement. 
 
. Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 137 
 
 The original state of the case was that each side looked at the law 
 as it liked. 'But when the Jewish Christians wished to enforce cir- 
 cumcision on the Gentile Christians, this mediating agreement must 
 have been concluded for the greater tranquillity of the Gentile Chris- 
 tians, who now saw themselves freed, with the consent of the Jewish 
 Christians, from the observance of this burdensome part of the law. 
 If, however, the Jewish Christians did not hold to their agreement, 
 if they insisted afresh on circumcision, the tranquiUity which the 
 agreement had bestowed on the Gentile Christians would be 
 disturbed, and they would find themselves plunged again into a 
 restless state of uncertainty as to whether they could be saved 
 without circumcision. But if now, so shortly after the agreement 
 had been made, they found it possible to disregard it altogether, 
 it may be fairly argued that they might have been tranquiUised 
 before without any such agreement at all, and we cannot avoid 
 coming to the conclusion that laws which not only were never 
 kept, but whose existence was not called for by any special need, 
 can never have been made at all. It is true that Neander appeals 
 to Acts xxi. 25 as a proof that the Apostles always held fast to the 
 observance of these decrees in Palestine, but this passage only 
 bears testimony to the interest which the author of the Acts of 
 the Apostles had in calling to remembrance the decrees mentioned 
 by him in a former place. There is no proof outside of the Acts 
 of the observance of these decrees, and only such proof, if it were 
 forthcoming, would be worthy of credit. It is not by any means 
 likely that the Apostles even held fast to the authority of these 
 decrees in Palestine. For why should they have done so ? Only 
 to compel the Jewish Christians to recognise the decrees in their 
 relations with Gentile Christians. But if so little resulted from 
 this exercise of their influence as the history shows, how powerless 
 must the authority of the Apostles have been with the Jewish 
 Christians ! — is it not more likely that the recognition of these 
 decrees was not enforced, or that the decrees never existed at aU ! 
 However small the probability that these decrees were observed, 
 or even that they existed at that time, they certainly existed at a 
 
138 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 later period. Even Neander remarks, "It was later that these 
 decrees received a more binding authority through the predomi- 
 nance of another tendency in the Church." Those latter conditions 
 show us from what point of view we have to consider the agree- 
 ment which the Acts refers to the earlier period ; but one thing 
 is certain, that history does not trace the validity which these 
 arrangements subsequently took to their having had the force 
 of law in the early Church. From the earliest date the Gentile 
 and Jewish Christians had stood in opposition to each other 
 with regard to circumcision; whilst the latter firmly adhered 
 to it, the former in no way recognised any obligation to adopt it, 
 but considered baptism to be its outward and perfectly sufficient 
 substitute. The situation of affairs at that time is precisely 
 indicated by what the Apostle Paul says in opposition to those 
 zealots for the law who, as members of the Church of Palestine, or 
 at least under its influence, maintained the necessity of circum- 
 cision in the churches founded by the Apostle out of Palestine. 
 Galatians v. 2, compared with iii. 27 : "ISe eyco IlavXo'; Xeya 
 vfiiv, oTi eav "jrepiTefivrjcrde, XpLaTO<; Vfx.a<s ovSev axpeXTjcrei' oaoi 
 •yap 649 Xpiarov e^a-mi,a6r)Te, Xpiarov eveBvaaade, ovk evi 
 'lovSalo's ouSe "EWtjv. The next step that was taken was the 
 leaving off of circumcision by the Jewish Christians, not indeed 
 in Palestine, where the Ebionites and Nazarenes still continued 
 strong adherents to the Mosaic law, but amongst the foreign 
 Jewish Christians, the Hellenists, who thus show in this point how 
 important an element they were in the most ancient history of 
 the Christian Church, as a reconciling medium between Jews and 
 Gentiles, thus preparing the path which Christianity itself was to 
 follow. How this took place is not distinctly evident, as there is 
 a lack of information ; still some hints are afforded which are 
 worthy of consideration. It is striking to find with what contempt 
 circumcision is treated in the Epistle of Barnabas, which if we do 
 not take it as having been written by the Barnabas known to us, 
 stiU must be considered to be a Hellenistic work, from its having the 
 name Barnabas attached to it. " Now first," says the author, chap. 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 139 
 
 ix., in a series of allegorical interpretations by which he endeavours 
 to elucidate the meaning of the Old Testament, " are our ears cir- 
 cumcised for the right understanding of the divine words. The 
 circumcision on which they placed their trust is now recognised as 
 null and void, for God intended no carnal circumcision, they fell 
 into error, being deceived by an evil angel." Here we have cir- 
 cumcision as it was observed by the Jews as a law of Moses, even 
 ascribed to demoniacal influence. In the Epistles of Ignatius 
 there is a difference made in the same way between an outer and 
 an inner circumcision, and a true and false Judaism.^ Another 
 remarkable sign of the change in the views and customs of the 
 Hellenists with regard to circumcision is given us by the Clemen- 
 tine Homilies. There is no other memorial which so clearly 
 testifies as does this document to the influence which Judaism 
 extended over Christianity down to the second half of the second 
 century. Although Judaism is so very predominant in it, there 
 is not the least question of circumcision, but so much the more 
 the importance of baptism and the new birth is held up as a 
 means for the renunciation of heathenism (the af^eWrjvoaOrivai, 
 Hom. xiii. 9), and the command of James to the elders of the 
 Church at Jerusalem not to yield up the discourses of Peter sent 
 to him to any one but a circumcised believer, is the only trace 
 of a reference to the ancient value attached to circumcision. 
 Without doubt this rejection of circumcision had its ground in the 
 conviction that the GentUes could never be won over by any 
 other means. How eager the Hellenistic Jewish Christians were 
 for the supplanting of Paganism and the spread of the only true 
 religion, is seen also in these Homilies by their making their 
 Apostle Peter entirely an Apostle to the Gentiles. The Acts 
 of the Apostles also takes up this point of view, when it makes 
 the increase that the Christian Church received from the GentUes 
 entirely owing to the change. But the more that the Jew yielded to 
 
 1 Epistle to the Philadelphians, c. 6. He who proclaims the one God of the 
 Law and the Prophets, and denies that Christ is the Son of God, is a liar, xai 
 eoTix 6 ToioOTor rrjs Kara jrepiTo^^s i^euSotouSaior. 
 
140 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. LPartI. 
 
 the Gentile with regard to circumcision, with the greater justice 
 could the observance and consideration of the Mosaic law, wherever 
 possible, be urged on the Gentile. The very points which are 
 mentioned in the Acts as the conditions of release from the 
 obligation of circumcision, we find, as far as we can learn, to be 
 the standing rules of Christian conduct in the apostolic time. 
 "When the Apostle Paul wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians 
 there was still a doubt in regard to elStoXoOvra. Yet even the 
 Apostle advises their rejection, not only on account of the regard 
 which ought to be paid to weaker Christians, but also because 
 the enjoyment of them would be fieTi-)(eiv rpaTre^i]^ Zaifiovim, 
 1 Corinthians x. 21. This became afterwards the prevailing view. 
 In this sense the Clementine Homilies, vii. 4, enjoin the aTre)(ea- 
 6at rpaireXv'! Baifiovcav, and it was especially urged against 
 the Gnostics, as they were generally looked upon as partly 
 heathens, that they declared elSaXodvTa eaOieiv to be a thing 
 indifferent and not defiling. In the period in which the Church 
 first emerged as a whole out of heterogeneous elements, it held 
 fast to the aTrdj(ea6ai, tov ttviktov Kai tov ai/Maroi (from the 
 flesh of beasts which were killed by strangling, which were 
 strangled in their blood, and from blood generally^). All this 
 is connected with the views which prevailed in the first Christian 
 Churches about heathenism, founded on the Jewish representa- 
 tions of demons as being the gods of the heathen world, and 
 indeed the originators of heathenism generally.^ The most re- 
 markable in the series of the apostolic ordinances is, however, the 
 
 ^ In the Epistle of the Gallic Churches of Paris and Vienna, in Eusehins, H.E. 
 V. 1, it is said, in reference to the well-known reproach made against theClii!' 
 tians, TToiff av naidia <j)dyoL€v oi rotoOrot, ols /iJjfie aXoyutv ^atav al/ia (^oyfiV 
 
 2 This connection is alluded to in Origen contra Celsum, viii. 30, to fie' yk 
 eldaXodvTQv Qvcrai dai^oviois Kai ov ^pT] tov toC Qeov avOpavov Kotvt^vov rpairi(^ 
 haLp,ovia>v ylvitrBai, ra 6e wvlkto, tov aiparos /ii) cKKpidevros oirep <^a<r\v fW 
 rpotpriv Saipovav, Tpe(f>opeva)P raXs an airov dvaOvfiiaa-ea-iv anayopeift o Xoyot 
 iva fir] rpa06J/iev Tpocl}jj baLp.6vaiV, ra-j^d TiV(ov roLovTtov jrvevuarov avyTpa<j>i}ll^ 
 fievav r)pXv iav piToKap^avapfv tS>v jrviKTav ex Se tSiv elprjuivav jrtpi rap irwiiWl' 
 (ra<\>is flvai hivarai to jrepi t^s ajro^^J Toi! ai/tiaTor. 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 141 
 
 oTre^ecrdai ttj? 7ropv€ta<;. Interpreters rightly find it very striking 
 that, as ISTeander expresses it (p. 166, Bohn, 120), along with the dis- 
 ciplinary ordinances, which were appointed for a certain time and 
 certain conditions, we should find the prohibition of uncleanness — 
 a law for all times and dealing with matters of objective morality. 
 Neander, however, is of opinion that " the connection in which this 
 
 ■ prohibition stands, gives the best explanation of the cause and 
 ' relations of the mention of this particular : iropveia is here only 
 
 ■ mentioned in the same reference as the foregoing points, on account 
 ' of the close connection in which they seemed to the Jews to stand 
 ' with the worship of idols ; men were already accustomed from the 
 - writings of the Old Testament to associate idolatry with immor- 
 " ality ; excesses of this sort are really bound up with many branches 
 ;«lof idolatry, and in general a strict idea of chastity is very far 
 i removed from the standpoint of natural religions. There is no 
 I question here of any special moral precept of Christianity ; had 
 I there been, the command would not have been given as a positive 
 
 one in this isolated way, but would have been deduced from the 
 whole connection of the Christian Faith and Life, as is done in the 
 Epistles of the Apostle. All that comes before us here is the 
 ancient Jewish hostility to anything which might appear to have 
 any connection with idolatry, and this hostility passed over into 
 the new Christian Churches." This explanation I cannot consider 
 satisfactory. For how could a special prohibition against partici- 
 ipation in the immorality which was bound up with the Gentile 
 idolatry have seemed necessary to Christians if they did not need 
 bhe iQculcation of the prohibition in general? Only he who 
 sbeld immorality in general to be a thing indifferent, could hold it as 
 \ thing allowed when in connection with Gentile idolatry. But a 
 "Drohibition against the immorality of the Gentile idolatry must 
 liave been the less necessary for Christians, as, with the prohibi- 
 tion of participation in the elhwXodvTa, there fell away every 
 ,)Ccasion for the immorality bound up with it. If we take the 
 'iTopvela in the sense Neander does, we do not perceive why 
 'he aire-xeaOab iropveia'i should find a special place close to the 
 
142 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [PartL 
 
 aTrexea-Oai eiZaXoOxnwv, as it is included in it, and such a use- 
 less addition is not to be expected in formal definitions of this 
 kind ; we therefore see ourselves again reduced to the necessity of 
 taking the iropveia in a general sense, and the aTre'^ea-Oat Tropviutii 
 as a general moral precept ; and this, as has been acknowledged, 
 is highly unlikely. What Olshausen gives as the only true explana- 
 tion is equally untenable, namely, " that we must bear in mind 
 the much greater freedom in sexual relations among the Greeks 
 and Eomans, which was an abomination to the more serious Jews, 
 and seemed to them even as refined fornication. By means of an 
 expression which comprised not merely gross but refined errors of 
 this kind, greater care and circumspection in their intercouise 
 with the female sex were recommended to the Gentile Christians, 
 in order that no cause of offence might be given to the Jewish 
 Christians." But who can believe that all this is expressed m the 
 word iropveia ? How vague and arbitrary would be the whole 
 idea of this iropveia, while such legal definitions ought to have a 
 precise meaning and be applied to a precise object. As the rest 
 of the ordinances related to special and definite circumstances, 
 this must be assumed to be the case with the iropveia as weU. 
 In this view the explanation of Gieseler (in the Abhandlung iibei 
 die Naz. u. Eb. in Stalidl. u. Tzsch. Arch. f. K. G. p. 312) deserves 
 preference over every other, and we cannot but wonder how 
 Weander and Olshausen have left it entirely disregarded. Von 
 Gieseler, following some older scholars, supposes that iropveia 
 here may mean incest, which deserved special mention, as among 
 Gentile nations unions among blood relations were held admis- 
 sible. This is the meaning the word iropveia has at 1 Corinthians 
 V. 1. When further we remember that in that period of the 
 Christian Church, to which the most ancient post-apostolic memo- 
 rials which have reached us belong, the contracting of second 
 marriages was looked on as fornication and adultery, and was so 
 designated by the oldest Christian authors, we can the less have 
 any doubt that the word iropveia here indicates marriage relations, j 
 which, according to the view prevailing at that time among Chris- 
 
Chap. V.] TRANSACTIONS AT JERUSALEM. 143 
 
 tians, were considered unlawful, and held to be tokens of an 
 unchaste and carnal mind. This explanation suits very well with 
 the context. For as partaking in the Gentile sacrifices and the 
 eating of things strangled, and of blood, were looked on as a 
 Gentile pollution, because through them men were brought into 
 communion with demons, the gods of the Gentiles, so also did illicit 
 marriage unions, and the contracting of second marriages, appear 
 along with them to lead away from the true God, and to be in 
 Conflict with Monotheism. He who contracted so unchaste a 
 union gave evidence by such an act that he, as the Clementine 
 Homilies express it, had no monarchical soul, i.e. no soul capable 
 of directing itself towards the highest unity. We must here 
 remember the Old Testament representation of the chosen people, 
 that they owed, as it were, marriage fidelity to God, and the N'ew 
 Testament idea of the union of Christ with the Church as his 
 Bride, in the light of which, as Christian marriage is spoken of in 
 the Epistle to the Ephesians, vi. 22, each union between man and 
 wife becomes a symbol of that holy indissoluble relation. Hence 
 it was required of the overseer of a Christian Church, in fact this 
 is mentioned first among the qualifications of the €7r/cr/co7ro9, 1 Tim. 
 iii. 2, that he should be /xta? jwaiKof avrjp. From this point of 
 view, everything about married life which was not in harmony 
 with the Christian standard could be designated as an idolatrous. 
 Gentile -iropveia. 
 
 All these directions which are alleged to have been given at 
 that early period in Jerusalem, bear unmistakably the impress of 
 a time ia which the relations of the Gentile Christians were thus 
 defined, not indeed towards the Jewish Christians of Palestine, 
 who would abate nothing of the strictness of the Mosaic law, and 
 could not sanction such relaxations of its demands, but towards 
 the more liberal-minded foreign Hellenists. "Whilst there is not 
 the least hint in the Pauline Epistles as to the agreement which, 
 according to the Acts of the Apostles, was so formally arranged in 
 Jerusalem (for in 1 Corinthians v. 1, if the matter dealt with 
 there is connected with our subject, we find no such hint), in all 
 
144 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part! 
 
 the post-apostolic writers, on the other hand, all these points are 
 represented as the existing fixed rules of the Christian life. How 
 likely is it therefore that the author of the Acts of the Apostles 
 himself belonged to this later time, that in this apostolic council 
 at Jerusalem he caiTies back to the earlier apostolic period, and 
 refers to a decree of the Apostles themselves, that which had now 
 become the settled practice of the Christian life in the relations 
 which Jewish and Gentile Christians held to each other? The 
 pseudo-Clementine Homilies place us in just the same sphere of 
 practical questions. When the Apostle Peter, in his character of 
 Apostle to the Gentiles, organised the Gentile Churches founded 
 by him in Tyre and Sidon, he gave them the following precepts, 
 Hom. vii. 4, 8 : — E<tti Se ra apecrKOvra Ta> Qem — rpairefyf} 
 haifjLovwv a-TTiyecrdai, veKpa<; fj,ri lyeveaOai. crapKO<;, /irj ■\jraveiv 
 difiaro^, eic TravTof airoKveaOai (or according to CoteHer's emenda- 
 tion, aTro\ovea6ai), XvfiaTO<;, ra Be Xonra eve Xoyw, baa 6eov 
 o-e/Soi/Te? rjKovcrav lovBaloi, Kai, vfieii aKovaare airame^, ev 
 iroXkoK aa>/j,aaiv /Miav •yvwp.rjv avd\afiovTe<;. The Apostle left 
 this precept behind him at Tyre, and when he went from thence 
 to Sfdon, he there gave a similar one : 'Jf Se vir aiiTov (God) 
 opiaOelaa OpTjcTKeia ecrriv to fiovov avTov (7e/3eiv, xai ra rrj^ 
 a\r]6eia<; fiovat Triareveiv •!rpo(f)rjTr), Kai et? a(^eai,v d/uipTimv ^wrr- 
 TiaOrjvai, Kai ovro) Sia ayvoTarr]'; ^a(j}rj<; avayewrjOfjvat &ew Sia 
 Tov (Tw^ovToi uSaro?' rpaTre^rj^ Sai/idvcov fit] fieraXa/i^dveiv, Xeym 
 Be ei,BoL)Xo6vTcov, veicpSiv, ttvoktwv OrjpoaXcorwv, aifiaTo<;, fir] dica- 
 daprto'i ^lovv, airo KOtTrj<; jvvaiKO'i XoveaOai, avTaf fiev Koi d^eSpov 
 <f>vXaTTeov, 7ravTa<; Se aax^povelv, eviroielv, fiTj aBiKeiv, etc. If we 
 deduct from this what belongs especially to the Clementine view 
 of Christianity, and if we take into consideration that baptism is 
 here put in the place of the circumcision which had been aban- 
 doned, we have the four points presented to us in the Acts of the 
 Apostles. For there can be no doubt that the fi^ aKaOdpTox: /Stow, 
 or the iravro's d-jroXoveaOai XvfiaTo^, corresponds to the dtre'xeaQM 
 iTopveia^, and includes in itself what is apparently to be under- 
 stood by the iropveia. No express prohibition of second marriages 
 
Chap. V.] TBANSACTI0N8 AT JERUSALEM. 145 
 
 is to be found iu the Clemeatine Homilies ; but as iropvela, 
 or fioix^la, is considered next to idolatry to be the greatest sin, 
 and as the greatest stress is laid on the fact that everything in 
 human life has a strict monarchical form and direction, we are 
 qjititled to assume that second marriages would scarcely need an 
 express prohibition, because it would be thought self-evident that 
 they were included under -n-opvela, or ^ioi')(eia. 
 
 In the passage first quoted it is clearly stated that the Jewish 
 Christians considered the observance of the decrees in question 
 as the essential condition by which alone they could unite in 
 one society with the Gentile Christians. It was in this way of 
 accommodation that the two heterogeneous elements first ap- 
 proached to a unity. But how far both sides still stand apart in 
 that time in which we first clearly perceive that the difference 
 exists ! 
 
 VOL. T. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY OF THE APOSTLE. — ACTS XVI 
 
 It was one of the grandest moments in the life of the Apostle 
 when, at this conference of Jerusalem, he defended the great cause 
 of his Gospel and apostolic mission against the elder Apostles and 
 the whole Church of Jerusalem, penetrated as he was with that 
 deep consciousness of its truth, which is expressed in his Epistles. 
 What had been at the time of his first journey to Jerusalem 
 nothing more than an idea, was now become a positive reahty, 
 evident to all eyes. The Apostle gave utterance to a real, un- 
 deniable truth when he insisted that the cause of his Gospel was 
 the cause of God. If this, on the part of the Apostle, was the 
 most powerful evidence of its truth, on the other hand the great 
 practical importance which the matter had assumed now made 
 the opposition of its enemies more decided and energetic. As 
 even Barnabas soon after the transactions at Jerusalem showed 
 signs of failing courage, it was in fact the Apostle alone who had 
 to wage the whole battle with the power of that Judaism which 
 was stUl so closely interwoven with Christianity. After he had 
 spent some time in Antioch, he undertook a new missionary 
 journey, in the strength of the loftier self-consciousness which had 
 been evolved by the events at Jerusalem and Antioch, and in the 
 conviction which these had afresh confirmed, that the cause of 
 his Gospel could never be crushed by merely human power, but 
 that it contained in itself the whole future of the history of the 
 development of Christianity. In this journey he not only re- 
 
Chap. VI.] ms SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 147 
 
 visited the countries in Asia Minor where he had before been, but 
 took the more important step of carrying over the doctrine of the 
 Gospel from Troas to Macedonia, and from thence spreading it 
 further in the countries of Europe. It is quite in the spirit of 
 classic antiquity (a spirit which is by no means strange to the 
 author of the Acts of the Apostles) that so important an era, 
 including so much of the future history of the cause of the Gospel, 
 should be inaugurated by a vision of the night. In this vision a 
 man from Macedonia appeared to the Apostle with a prayer that 
 he would go over to Macedonia and help them (xvi. 9). As the 
 author of the Acts of the Apostles loves to indicate, by various 
 hints and signs, the inherent desire of the Gentile world for the 
 salvation of the Gospel, so here, by this man of Macedonia, he 
 symbolises the desire for salvation with which not only the people 
 of Macedonia, but those of Europe generally, invoked the Apostle 
 as the ambassador of the newly revealed salvation. We could 
 scarcely complain of the author of the Acts of the Apostles indulg- 
 ing his literary tastes by such an embellishment of the history, if 
 he did not introduce us immediately afterwards to a series of 
 narratives in which we see the further events in the Apostle's life 
 only by the magic light of miracle, and find a thick veil hiding 
 from us the historical truth of them. 
 
 The occurrences which are said to have taken place during the 
 Apostle's visit to Philippi, in Macedonia, belong to the most 
 miraculous order of those which the Acts of the Apostles relates 
 of him. Interpreters and critics indeed (not excepting Neander) 
 pass over these suspicious passages with their accustomed facility, 
 but it cannot be denied that there is very much in them to which 
 we may make valid objection. The chief dif&culty is in the nar- 
 rative beginning chap. xvi. 20, but the one preceding it where the 
 cause of what follows is related, is strange enough. Whilst Paul 
 and Silas, it is stated, were spending some days in Philippi, they 
 were followed, whenever they took their way to the Jewish 
 Proseuche outside the city, by a damsel possessed with a spirit of 
 divination, with the loud cry, "These men are the servants of the 
 
148 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part I., 
 
 Most High God, who show us the way of salvation." After the 
 damsel had done this for many days, Paul at last turned angrily 
 to her, and in the name of Jesus Christ commanded the spirit to 
 come out of her. But as those persons whose slave she was lost 
 the important gains which they were wont to obtain from her 
 prophetic powers, they excited a popular tumult against Paul and 
 Silas, on the charge of political intrigue, and accomplished the 
 arrest of the Apostle and his companion. The attempts of modem 
 interpreters to explain this matter more clearly only place its 
 improbability in a stronger light. The -n-vevfia irvdavo'; is a very 
 peculiar phenomenon. The latest interpreters reject the theory 
 of ventriloquism, which the expression Trvevfia Trv0a>vo<; would 
 imply, and which some earlier scholars held to be indicated here ; 
 but Olshausen and Neander are positive that they find the solution 
 they desire in the phenomena of somnambulism. " In the recogni- 
 tion of the spiritual characteristics of the Apostle by the damsel," 
 says Olshausen, "there may be perceived the same clairvoyance, 
 of which such numerous examples are found in those Gospel 
 histories which relate the healing of those possessed by demons." 
 In the same sense Neander (page 176) speaks of the "phenomena 
 of the somnambulistic state taking the form of convulsions,' in 
 which the impression of what the damsel had before heard of 
 Paul reacted on, and became mingled with, her own heathen ideas." 
 According to this explanation there is suggested to us, to say the 
 least, a doubt as to how the Apostle could have treated the damsel 
 as one possessed by an evil spirit, if she had merely been in a 
 state of somnambulism. Olshausen gives no explanation of this, 
 but Neander says (page 177), "There is no ground for assuming 
 that an error could not possibly exist in the light of the Apostle's, 
 
 ' We may observe by the way that there 13 not the least hint in the text of 
 convulsions, or of a condition of ecstasy. I must likewise declare to be quite 
 beside the mark the assertion derived from reports of missionaries, that persons 
 who imparted oracles in an ecstatic condition, and under powerful convulsions, 
 could never return to that condition after their conversion to Christianity, as 
 there is not a single word said in the text on the chief point on which the 
 assertion is based, — the conversion of the slave. , 
 
Chap. VI.] HIS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 149 
 
 Christian consciousness on such a subject as this, which does not 
 affect the truth of the Gospel, but belongs to a perfectly different 
 and lower province, namely, the question whether this was to be 
 taken as a phenomenon explicable from the nature of the human 
 soul, from its natural powers, its connection with the corporeal 
 organism, or as the consequence of possession by a personal evil 
 spirit." It is very evident what dangerous consequences lie in 
 this explanation for a standpoint like that of Neander. If, as 
 Neander expressly says, the possibility of error on the part of the 
 Apostle may be assumed in a case like the foregoing, why may 
 not this assumption be permitted in other like cases ? Even 
 Olshausen has brought the demoniacs of the Gospel under the 
 point of view of somnambulistic phenomena. May we, following 
 the lead of Meander's assertion, suppose the possibility of error in 
 the religious consciousness of Jesus himself? For the demoniacs 
 of the Gospel are never described as being in a condition of somnam- 
 bulism, but as being possessed by evil spirits. With what right, 
 moreover, can it be maintained, that a question of this sort does not 
 properly belong to the sphere of the truth of the Gospel ? As long 
 as the doctrine of demons holds its peculiar place in the series of 
 truths of the Christian faith, the .question of the uifluence of 
 ■demons, and its extent, must undoubtedly have a real religious 
 importance, and it cannot be concluded without inconsequence 
 that an Apostle enlightened by the divine Spirit may have been 
 in error on the question whether .a certain case was one of 
 demoniac influence or of natural disorder. If, however, we let 
 such questions rest as they are, the supposition of a condition 
 similar to the phenomena of somnambulism is in any case refuted 
 in this passage. If the damsel was not really possessed by an 
 evil spirit, how could the Apostle command the spirit \t'ith which 
 she was afflicted to come out of her ? What must we think of 
 the change which took place in the damsel, if the Apostle was so 
 much at fault respecting the cause of her disorder? Must we 
 accept it as an operation of his miraculous power, in a case in 
 which he did not even know the object with which it had to deal ? 
 
150 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 And how are we to explain the displeasure which the outcries of 
 the damsel excited in the Apostle, and the reproving earnestness 
 with which he treated them, if there was no evil spirit at work 
 here at all ? Neander seems to have this question before him, as 
 he remarks (page 1 77), " The Apostle commanded the spirit which 
 held her heart and reason in bondage to come out of her. If 
 this was not a personal evil spirit, the work was that of an 
 ungodly spirit. That which ought to be free in man, and to rule 
 over all his natural impulses and powers, was made subservient 
 to such a spirit as this. And through the divine might of him 
 who restored peace and harmony to the distracted soul of the 
 demoniacally- afflicted damsel, she found herself in a changed 
 condition, freed from the power of the ungodly spirit, and lost 
 from this moment the power of returning to that state." Accord- 
 ing to this, we are to suppose an ungodly spirit which is no 
 personal evil spirit, a state of bondage to natural impulses and 
 powers from which the patient cannot free herself, and yet, at the 
 same time, a state into which she can enter by choice and free- 
 will. But what is gained by such half measures in reasoning? 
 To what purpose is such a rationalising of miracles, when in other 
 places there is no hesitation in heaping miracle on miracle ? Let 
 it be openly confessed, therefore, as the letter of the text requires, 
 that an evil spirit is here spoken of, and that from our present 
 standpoint we have no right to draw distinctions between the fact 
 and the Apostle's view of it, or the author's narrative of it. The 
 displeasure of the Apostle and the miraculous act performed by 
 him can therefore have no other reason than that, although the 
 evil spirit unwillingly bore witness to the truth, the Apostle did 
 not wish to see the acknowledgment of the truth promoted any 
 longer by demoniacal help. But the demon who here asserted his 
 existence is called irvev/j-a TrvOavo-;. If we grant that the expres- 
 sion does not exactly necessitate the idea of a spirit of the Pythian 
 Apollo, yet it must be looked on in any case as something charac- 
 teristic that it is here stated that the demon was "a spirit of 
 divination." There existed then a special class of spirits of divina- 
 
Chap. VI.] SIS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 151 
 
 tion, though, according to the general Jewish Christian idea, 
 demons generally possess not only the superior knowledge that 
 pertained to their race, hut also the power of prophesying. But 
 does not this lead us back to the heathen view, which Plutarch 
 (De def. Orac. 9.) reprobates as a piece of childishness and foUy. 
 " Tov 0eov avrov ma-irep tou? eyyaaTpi/ivOov; EvpvKXfa<; t7 dkai, 
 vvvi Ilvdwva<; Trpoaayopevo/ji.evov'i, ivBvdfievov et? ra a-co/j,aTa t5)V 
 nrpo^riTwv v'!ro<f>de'Yyea-6ai, rot? eKelvwv arofiaai Kal ^aval'} 
 j(p(Ofievov opyavoi<;." But if it is insisted that the demon as such 
 was a spirit of divination, how can we think, how reconcile it with 
 sound psychological ideas, that a demon, being a superior being, 
 and taking possession of men, was at the same time so completely 
 in the service of the person it possessed that the latter could 
 make what use he pleased of the divining power of the demon, 
 and could even make a trade of it ? This in fact surpasses even 
 all that is said in the Gospels concerning the relations of demons 
 with those possessed by them, and shows clearly that those 
 interpreters who have no doubt of the reality of demoniac posses- 
 sion, yet feel that here they must take another course; which 
 clearly shows that no intelligible idea can be formed out of the 
 occurrences related. 
 
 The chief difficulties, however, as we have said, are to be found 
 in the later part of the narrative, to which this is merely the intro- 
 duction. The story is shortly this : The masters of the slave, 
 deprived of the gains which they made by her, by the expulsion of 
 the spirit of divination, excited the people to an uproar by a charge 
 of seditious innovations brought against Paul and Silas ; the result 
 of which was that the Duumviri of the city of PhiUppi caused the 
 two Apostles to be scourged with rods, thrown into the deepest 
 prison, and held in the strictest confinement. But at midnight 
 Paul and Silas raised a loud hymn, heard by aU the prisoners, 
 which was followed immediately by a powerful earthquake, which 
 caused the doors of the prison to be thrown open and the fetters 
 of the prisoners to be loosed. At the sight of the open doors the 
 jailer, thinking that the prisoners had escaped, was about to throw 
 
152 LIFE AND WOEK OF FAUL. [Part I. 
 
 himself on his sword, when Paul called out to him with a loud 
 voice that they were all there, and he, falling at the feet of Paul 
 and Silas, asked, " What must I do to be saved ?" The answer 
 was, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." The word of God was 
 then declared to him and to all his household, and they received 
 Christian baptism. The jailer made a supper that very night, in 
 token of his joy. 
 
 Scarcely had the day broken when the Duumviri sent the com- 
 mand to release Paul and Silas. But Paul declared that since they 
 were Eoman citizens on whom this indignity had been inflicted, 
 it was not fitting that they should be put out privily ; that the 
 Duumviri should come in person and take them out of prison. 
 These magistrates, learning for the first time that the men against 
 whom they had taken these proceedings were Eoman citizens, 
 actually came in person, led the Apostles out of prison, and prayed 
 them with friendly words to leave the city. 
 
 This simple summary of the chief points in the narrative shows 
 clearly enough how signally the whole course of the matter is 
 destitute of any natural connection. This objection by no means 
 applies merely to the miracle included in the account, the reaUty 
 of which must be insisted on, since the interpretation which regards 
 the earthquake as a merely natural and fortuitous circumstance, is 
 in direct contradiction to the words and meaning of the author. 
 ISTeander gives this turn to the passage (page 178) : "At midnight 
 Paul and Silas joined in praising God in prayer because an earth- 
 quake shook the foundations of the prison." I can only see in 
 this interpretation a transposition which the text does not justify, as 
 the author certainly does not intend to represent the earthquake as 
 the cause of the prayer, but as the consequence and effect of it. How 
 can we believe that not only were the doors of the prison opened by 
 the earthquake, but that it even loosened the fetters of the prisoners? 
 Let us leave the miracle as we find it, as it is the only thing which 
 brings a certain kind of connection into this part of the narrative, 
 and let us take into consideration the circumstances which followed. 
 
 Whilst the two Apostles were singing and praying so loudly that 
 
Chap. VI.] HIS SECONT) MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 153 
 
 ■all their fellow-prisoners heard them, the keeper of the prison 
 alone lay in a deep sleep. When at last (alarmed, as we must sup- 
 pose, by the earthquake) he awoke and saw the doors of the prison 
 open, the first thing he did was to draw his sword in order to kill 
 himself, without seeing whether the prisoners were really fled, as 
 he feared, or not, before he resolved on this desperate deed. He 
 also apparently never thought that the earthquake which awakened 
 him might possibly have been the cause of the doors standing open, 
 in which case no blame would have fallen on him; and when 
 Paul called to him with a loud voice that they were all there, he 
 threw himself at the feet of Paul and Silas without any visible 
 cause. How did he know that the convulsion of the earth, which 
 he also took as miraculous, had happened expressly for the sake of 
 the Apostles ? and assuming (although the author does not say so) 
 that Paul and Silas had informed him of this, what could have 
 decided him to place such implicit confidence in them on so short 
 an acquaintance, and how could the Apostles themselves have 
 given the assurance they did so confidently (28) in the darkness 
 (29), which any of their fellow-prisoners might easily have availed 
 himself of for the purpose of flight ? Then is it likely that the 
 keeper of the prison, who just before was about to kill himself at 
 once, because he feared he had betrayed his trust without know- 
 ing how, now so completely forgot this fear and its cause — the 
 Duumviri — that he carried otf the two prisoners with him to his 
 house and entertained them at a festival, as if he now at once were 
 freed from all respomsibility, .although he could have no ground for 
 the assumption that the D'Uiimviri had changed their views with 
 regard to the prisoners, and would leave him unpunished if he 
 violated the trust of his office, and 'oontravened the express com- 
 mands he had received ? With the dawn of day the Duumviri, 
 they who had the day before taken such harsh measures, and 
 seemed about to take some still harsher, sent without any expla- 
 nation the command to let the two prisoners go ; but there is no 
 connection to be seen here. If we say they may have acted so 
 strictly on the preceding day merely on account of the people. 
 
154 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 this does not seem a very probable course of proceeding for Eoman 
 
 magistrates, and (xvi. 35) would rather give us to understand that 
 
 they were not quite sure about their ground, and as the narrative 
 
 undoubtedly tacitly implies, had been warned by the earthquake, 
 
 of which they must have been aware, to act as they did.-' 
 
 The improbabilities are not yet exhausted. The Duumviri now 
 
 first perceive that they have violated the rights of Eoman citizens, 
 
 and in order to spare themselves further disagreeable consequences, 
 
 they go in person to the prison to ask forgiveness of the prisoners, 
 
 and try to induce them not to carry the affair any further. Can 
 
 we imagine that Eoman magistrates would conduct themselves 
 
 in such a manner, and make so manifest an ofBcial blunder, 
 
 which imperilled the whole dignity of their position ? Either it 
 
 was a common practice to ask those who were liable to punishment 
 
 first of all whether or not they were Eoman citizens, or else it was 
 
 concluded that those who were to be punished would proclaim 
 
 their citizenship, and avail themselves of its privileges, as we find 
 
 in a like case, Acts xxii. 25. If the first was the case, the inquiry 
 
 would not have been omitted, but if the latter, the Duumviri 
 
 were relieved of all responsibility for what occurred. Paul and Silas 
 
 had themselves to blame for not asserting their rights. But in any 
 
 case, we can find no reason why they did not at the very first prevent 
 
 the injustice about to be committed, as it was their duty to do, and 
 
 as Paul did, Acts xxii. 25, when he was going to be beaten, when 
 
 he said to the centurion, Et avdpanrov 'Pccfuuov koI aKaTcucpirov 
 
 e^eariv vfuv fiaarl^eiv ; In this case the Apostles did not say 
 
 that they were Eoman citizens tUl after they had received their 
 
 punishment. Were they not themselves to blame for this? or could 
 
 they reckon beforehand, that in a matter where they had in theii 
 
 own hands ample means of self-protection, God had resolved to 
 
 effect their complete release by so striking a vindication ? This 
 
 1 That this warrant of discharge was sent by them in consequence of a report 
 they had received from the jailer, as Neander supposes, is the less likely, as so 
 important a circumstance would not possibly have been overlooked by a faithful 
 author. The narrative evidently will not warrant any outward motive of that 
 kind. 
 
Chap. VI.] HIS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 155 
 
 is really the idea that lies at the foundation of this miraculous 
 narrative. Prom the first the most illegal measures were taken 
 against the two Apostles, and in the harshest manner. They were 
 not merely beaten with rods, but thrust iuto the darkest dungeon, 
 and watched with the greatest strictness, without any one seeming 
 to know exactly what great crime they had committed. No 
 inquiry was instituted, no legal forms were observed, nothing was 
 done which was customary in Eoman tribunals, and aU this evi- 
 dently with a view that God should have the more opportunity to 
 give a complete vindication. It is a kind of triumphal cry to 
 which Paul gives utterance, when he says to the despairing keeper 
 of the prison (xvi. 28), "Do thyself no harm, for we are all here !" 
 as though he would say, " It is by no means the case that we have 
 made use of this miracle which has taken place on our account, in 
 order to set ourselves free. Ye must, however, now perceive whom 
 ye have seized, and of how much ye are guilty against our honour." 
 It is not enough that the keeper of the prison be converted in one 
 moment ; he must also directly prepare a festive meal, in order to 
 show all honour to his distinguished prisoners. And all this — the 
 conversion of the keeper of the prison and his whole household; 
 their first instruction in Christianity, the baptism of the converted, 
 the entertainment — happened during the same night, in the course 
 of the few hours between midnight and morning. So powerful 
 and enthralling was the impression made by the miracle, and 
 in so august a light do the two Apostles appear! The Eoman 
 magistrates are now obliged to condescend so far as to repair to the 
 prison in person in order to offer the fullest compensation to the 
 two Apostles for the injustice they had endured. The ques- 
 tion may weU. be raised here, whether such a grave claim for satis- 
 faction, gratified after all by such a trifling outward formality, 
 was thoroughly suitable to the character of the Apostle and 
 worthy of him. Wetstein is the only one of the older interpreters 
 who notices this question, which yet so naturally presents itself. 
 "Hoc Paulus debebat sibi ipsi, si enim clam abiisset, pauUo 
 post rumor fuisset sparsus, effracto carcere ipsum aufugisse, quse 
 
150 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 res famee et auctoritati apostolicee apud Philippenses et alios multum 
 nocuisset." Yet the command sent by the Duumviri does not, 
 when we look at it, order a secret dismissal ; and although the 
 Duumviri had set the Apostles free by a written order, and not led 
 them out of prison personally, we do not see how it could have 
 been reasonably inferred that Paul and Silas had gone away 
 secretly. Everything was publicly conducted, and if the Apostles 
 found it necessary to demand a special public recognition of their 
 innocence, why did they insist on a vindication of their honour, 
 thus laying themselves open to the charge of egotism and exagger- 
 ated sensitiveness about their personal dignity ? 
 
 Wetstein says further, "Porro etiam jure civili et naturaU tene- 
 batur immunitatem suam et civitatem Eomanam asserere; quid 
 enim sunt immunitates et jura, si quis ea negligat, et sibi eripi 
 patiatur ? si alii omnes idem facerent, et qui nunc vivunt, et posteri 
 ipsorum perpetu£e addicentur servituti et mancipiorum loco 
 habebuntur. Boni autem «ivis est, facere ne sua negligentia alii, 
 quibuscum vivit, cives, et praecipue liberi nepotesque deterioris fiant 
 conditionis quam fuissent absque eo." All this is quite true ; but 
 we must all the more wonder why the Apostles did not make use 
 of their Eoman citizenship at first, as it was their clear duty to do, 
 and protest against such unjust and insulting treatment. If they 
 wished to claim the privilege afterwards, we cannot see any reason 
 why it should have been done exactly in this form.-' In one word, 
 the result to be reached by the judicial inquiry instituted against 
 the Apostles is that they shall come out of it with increased glory, 
 
 1 Neander (p. 246, Bohn, 179) takes a peculiar way to vindicate the conduct of the 
 Apostle. "If there had been any element of fanaticism in the enthusiasm with which 
 Paul bore all shame and suffering in the cause of the Lord, he certainly would 
 have done nothing to escape from the disgrace, to avoid which could not prejudice 
 but would rather help his office, nor to receive the apology to his dignity which 
 his citizenship entitled him to claim. This is far from what in later times the 
 morality of the monkish spirit called humility." Of such humility we indeed see 
 no trace ; but the question is not now of this, but rather of the contrary ; he who 
 stands not far from one extreme, is for that very reason not free from the sus- 
 picion of standing too near the other. Olshausen thinks that he can remove all 
 difiSculty by the remark that the Apostle may have acted towards those without, 
 according to the jus talimiis, the only one they were in a condition to understand. 
 
Chap. VI.] HIS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 157 
 
 that they shall appear as lofty, Tinapproachable beings protected by 
 Divine power. 
 
 This entire series of improbabilities, brought together with such 
 evident design, must cast the gravest suspicion on the historical 
 character of the narrative. It does not bear a mythical stamp ; 
 reflection and purpose are evident throughout. Even the circum- 
 stance that the scene is laid at Philippi is a mark of the writer's 
 ingenuity. The whole tenor of the narrative tends to exhibit the 
 disgrace of the opponents ; they are themselves made to aid in this 
 design, by interfering in a flagrant manner with the two preachers of 
 the Gospel. Nothing less coii^ld be done to them with this view 
 than to beat them with rods, to put them in chains, and to thrust 
 them into the darkest dungeon. But if a fitting satisfaction for 
 this were to be rendered, some point was necessary on their side 
 on which they could insist with all the formality of law. To this 
 end nothing could more naturally offer itself than the well-known 
 fact that the Apostle Paul was in possession of Eoman citizen- 
 ship. But that he might make use of this right effectively he must 
 have Eoman magistrates before whom to urge it. Eomans were 
 needed to pay the due respect to Eoman citizenship. Eoman 
 magistrates had therefore to be represented as taking illegal and 
 unjust proceedings against the two Apostles. But Eoman magis- 
 trates could only be had in a Eo^man municipal city, and such a 
 city was Philippi as a Eoman colony. Thus at the very first men- 
 tion of the city of Philippi it is remarked that it was a Eoman 
 colony, and everything that is related of the residence of the two 
 Apostles in Philippi seems only to be told as an introduction to 
 
 But is this the morality of Christian principle? Whither must such a moral 
 declension to the lower standard of others lead, and in what direct contradiction 
 does this JIM ialionis stand to the command of Jesus, Matthew v. 38, 39. Again, 
 it must be taken into consideration, with regard to Silas, that all proof of Eoman 
 citizenship in his case is wanting. This of itself would prove nothing, and on 
 the other hand we cannot blame Grotius when he says that Paul here speaks 
 "communicative," he ascribes only per synecdochen, the Roman citizenship to 
 his companion Silas ;, but then it must be granted that the Eomans would scarcely 
 have been willing to allow such a synecdoche, which by its very nature could have 
 no application to legal relatioiis. 
 
15H LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 what afterwards took place between them and the Eoman magis- 
 trates. They were obliged to pass many days at the house of 
 Lydia, because the affair with the possessed damsel is represented 
 as extending over many days,^ and this occurrence was the cause 
 of the more important events which followed. Everything is here 
 introduced with this ulterior motive, to enhance the effect of the 
 chief scene, the glorification of the Apostle and his companion. 
 And what is the foundation of all this ? The apologetic parallel 
 between the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul. Twice was Peter 
 released from prison by miraculous means. The first time when 
 he had been thrown into a dungeon with the rest of the Apostles 
 at the command of the Sanhedrim, v. 1 9 ; the second time when, 
 after the execution of the elder James, king Herod destined the 
 same fate for him, xii. 3. The Apostle Paul must not therefore 
 fail to give a similar token of the divine miraculous power which 
 watched over him. If according to the analogy of the characters 
 of the Acts of the Apostles the Pauline miracle is only to be looked 
 at as a reflex of the Petrine, then the question as to the actual 
 reality of such miraculous narratives must be raised upon the first 
 event, of which the latter is but a copy. The copy can only he 
 understood from the original. It will therefore not be out of place, 
 in the interest of the inquiry before us, if we look a Httle closer 
 into the nature of this Petrine miracle which is here reflected in 
 Paul. 
 
 The narrative of the hostile measures which king Herod Agrippa 
 took against the Christian Church at Jerusalem (Acts xii.) stands 
 very detached. There is nothing said about the cause which led 
 the king to act all at once in so extremely harsh a manner towards 
 the Apostles who had remained unmolested in Jerusalem during 
 the first persecution, nor how the elder James, who is nowhere 
 
 1 Not without reason doea it seem specially indicated (xvi. 18) that the damsel 
 acted in this manner during several days (17). This is evidently to be taken as the 
 cause of the Apostle's annoyance (the bimrovd^rSat, of. iv. 2). This "grief" is the 
 immediate cause of the expulsion of the demon. The more cause the Apostle had 
 for annoyance in the behaviour of the damsel, the more unjust appears what 
 afterwards occurred. 
 
Chap. VI.] BIS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 159 
 
 else mentioned by name, had drawn particular attention upon 
 himself. Neither is there any mention of similar attentions being 
 paid to the Apostles in Jerusalem afterwards; and the whole 
 proceeding is so much the more incomprehensible, as Josephus is 
 not only completely silent on these events, but expressly praises 
 the mild, beneficent mind of the king, who was in no way incHned 
 to cruelty.^ In one point only is there any contact between the 
 Acts of the Apostles and the narrative of Josephus. According to 
 Acts xii. 3, the king seems to have been actuated when he took 
 these persecuting measures by his desire to render himself pleasing 
 to the people. Josephus especially mentions this desire for popu- 
 larity, and indeed connects it with a strong adherence to the national 
 worship.^ In this respect, what is stated in the Acts of the Apostles 
 seems to be confirmed. The zeal of the king for the established 
 national worship would have made him hate a sect which, however 
 closely it might adhere to Judaism, still by holding up the name 
 of Jesus, who had been condemned by the Jewish authorities, had 
 excited against itself a suspicion of rehgious innovation. On the 
 other hand we find no trace of the harsh measures against the 
 Christian Church at Jerusalem being calculated to gain popularity ; 
 — indeed Josephus relates a case in which, judging by analogy, the 
 contrary would appear more probable. I mean the well-known 
 narrative in which, according to the received text, he relates the 
 death of James the Just. He says, Antiq. xx. 9 : 'O Se vetorepo'i 
 Avavo';, ov Trjv apyiepaxrvvrjv e<J3a/j,ev TrapeiXTjcpevai, Opaarv; rjv tov 
 TpoTTOv Kai Tok/MTjTTi'; hia^epovTWf aipeaiv he fierrjei Trjv IlaBSov- 
 Kaicov, oiirep et,cn irepi ra^ KpiaeK cofioi, irapa Traira? tov<! lovSaiov; 
 KaOo)^ rjSrj SeBrfKcoKa/jiev are Sjj ovv tolovto'; wv o Avavo<i, voiii<Ta<; 
 e'^eiv Kaipov eiT(,Tr]Seiov, Bta to redvavai /j,ev ^rjarov, AX^lvov 8e 
 
 * Antiq. xix. 7. 3 : 'E?r€<^VKft Se o ^acrikevs ovros — rfhojxevos rm xapifec^a' Koi 
 T(3 jSioOv fV ev^rijila xa'P'""' "'"'' o^^^" 'Hp«!'8'; ra ivpb eavTOv (SatriXfl tov rpoirov 
 ov^<l>€p6fi€V0S' CKeiva yap novrjpov rjV rjdos eVl TLfiaplav airoTOfjiOv — npavs 8e 6 
 Tpmos 'Aypmna kuI irpbs ndvTas to eiepyeriKov o/ioiov. 
 
 ^ Antiq. x. 7. 8 : 'HScia ■yoCi' avT& SiaiTa Koi (rvvep^^r iv toIs 'lepocroXvp.ois tjv, 
 Kol TO. irarpia KadapSis irriper Sia iraoT/s yoCv avTov riycv ayveias, oiSe fifiepa tW 
 wapiiSevev airtS, rijs vop,ip,i]S ^ripevovcra Bvaias. 
 
]G0 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 €Ti Kara Trjv oBov vTrap^eiv, Kadi^et crvveBpi.ov Kptrcov Kao irapa- 
 ^a'^av eii aiiro \tov aBeXcjjov Irjcrov tov Xeyoprevov Xpiarov 
 'ldK(j}j3o^ ovofia avTO), Kai\ rivw; [erepou?], eo<; •KapavofirjaavTwv 
 KaTT/yopiav 7roi7)crafi€vo^ irapehwKe XevaOrjao/jLevov;. Otroi Be 
 eSoKovv eTTieLKetTTaToi twv Kara rrjp ttoXcv elvau Kai, ra Trepi, rov^ 
 vofiov<; aKpi,^el<i, /Sapeoo's r)ve'^Kav eirc tovtm, Kai Trefnrovab irpoi 
 TOV ^aaiXea (the King Agrippa of Acts xxv. 1 3, the son of Herod 
 Agrippa, Acts xii. 1), Kpv^a irapaicaXovvTe'; avrov einaTeiXai, Tm 
 'Avav(p fir)KerL Toiavra irpacraeiv' firjBe jap to irpuiTov opOw^ 
 avTov 'jre'rroiTfKevai,. Tive<; Be avTuiv kul toi; AX^lvov v-jravTia- 
 ^ov(Tiv a-TTO Trj^ AXe^avBpei.a<; oBonropovvTa Kai BiBaaKovinv my 
 ovK e^ov TjV 'Avavw %&)/3i? tj^? cKetvov yvaifiT)^ KaOicrai avveSpiov, 
 AX^lvc; Be Tretcr^et? tok Xeyofievoif ypa^et, jieT opyrji; tw 'Avava, 
 XTplreaOai Trap avTov St«;a? aTreiXcov, Kav 6 ^acnXev<; 'AypiTnra^ 
 Bia TOVTo T-qv ap'x^iepcocrvvrjv acpeXofievo^ avTOV, ap^avTa /jLTJva^ rpeh, 
 Iricrovp Tdv tov Aaj^vacov KaTecrrrjaev. 
 
 It is confessedly very doubtful whether Josephus really names 
 the Apostle James in this place ; the passage is in all probability 
 to be read without the words here included in brackets, which 
 seem to be only a Christian gloss. But at the same time scarcely 
 anything else except Christians can be understood by that irapa- 
 vo/jLTjcravTe'i. And, indeed, if the apocryphal sounding narrative of 
 Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. ii. 23) contains any truth regarding the 
 death of James the Just, he must at that time have perished by 
 some violent means or other. According to Hegesippus also, 
 James the Just was stoned, and not at the instigation of the 
 populace, but at that of the chiefs of the sect {rivh tw eina 
 alpeaewv twv ev Tm Xaa> (Eus., ib.), by which we understand the 
 Pharisees to be meant, but not them alone, since mention is made 
 at the same time of the denial of the resurrection as a distinguish- 
 ing doctrine of these sects (al Se alpeaeh al Trpoeipijfievai om 
 eiriaTevov ovTe avaaTaaov, ovTe epx^ofJ-evov airoBovvai eKatrra 
 KaTa Ta epya avTov). 
 
 If we now compare the case related by Josephus with that 
 mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, we can easily imagine that, 
 
Chap. VI.] HIS SECOND MISSIONABY JOURNEY. 161 
 
 as at the time of which Josephus speaks, a deed of violence had been 
 committed against some of the members of the Church at Jerusalem, 
 and perhaps even against its chief, something similar may have been 
 done by the earlier king Herod Agrippa. A high priest belonging to 
 the sect of the Sadducees may have aided in the matter on the 
 earlier as well as on the later occasion. At any rate, according to 
 Josephus, Antiq. xix. 6. 4, the king stood in a very close con- 
 nection with the then High Priest. That in any case an act of 
 cruelty was committed against the Church by Herod Agrippa, and 
 as the Acts of the Apostles relates, the elder James then died a 
 violent death, receives still further confirmation from the Christian 
 legend which arose on the subject of the death of this king, and 
 which could scarcely have arisen as we find it, Acts xii. 19, from 
 what Josephus narrates of the manner of his death, had there not 
 been some circumstances specially affecting the Church to make it 
 a matter of some interest.^- But the above quotation from Josephus 
 shows quite clearly how unpopular such persecuting measures were, 
 and the conclusion is very obvious, that if the act of violence sub- 
 sequently committed by the High Priest Ananus excited general 
 displeasure among aU the right-thinking, orderly inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem, and occasioned the measures spoken of by Josephus, so 
 that the Eoman Procurator Albinus thought himself obliged to 
 interfere, and King Agrippa on just the same ground deprived the 
 
 1 If -we compare the narrative of the death of the king (Acts xii. 19) with 
 that in Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2, we see a remarkable similarity running through 
 all the differences which exist in the accounts. Josephus also places the sickness 
 and death of the king in direct connection with the festivities of the day, and 
 with the indecent honour which was shown to the king by the sycophantic 
 people. The historical fact which lies at the root of both narratives, namely, 
 the sudden death of the king, occurring shortly after the festival, allows of no 
 doubt ; and Josephus also seems to have considered it as a divinely sent punish- 
 ment, or else he would not have placed it in such direct relation to the super- 
 human honours of which he speaks. Josephus indeed does not say anything of 
 an angel of death, but speaks of an owl as the ominous prophet of death. StUl 
 less does Josephus say anything of the king's living body being devoured by 
 worms ; according to his narrative, the sickness was only a very severe pain in 
 the bowels ; but even this account of the sickness evidently shows a point of con- 
 nection with the Christian legend. The piercing, gnawing, inwardly devouring 
 pains — what are they when mythically presented but worms devouring the living 
 
 VOL. I. ^ 
 
162 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 High Priest Ananus of his office, these steps cannot have been 
 received with great favour by the people, when taken by Herod 
 Agrippa, though individuals who exercised great influence over the 
 king may have been of a different opinion in the matter. On this 
 we need not hesitate in laying to the credit of his historical theor- 
 ising, what the author of the Acts of the Apostles says regarding 
 the satisfaction of the people at the proceedings of the king. This 
 theorising is the more evident as the remark, verse 3, that it 
 "pleased the people" stands in the closest connection with the 
 subsequent narrative of the miracle and the chief occurrence in it, 
 namely, the saving of Peter, Ik Tracr?;? rrj'; irpoahoKia^ tov \aov 
 rwv 'lovSalcov, xii. 11. If we take this view of the narrative, which 
 the history of the time certainly warrants us to do, we reach a cer- 
 tainly not improbable historical combination on what the Acts here 
 tells us about Peter. The same fate threatened the Apostle Peter ; 
 he also was to be publicly executed, but the feast of the Passover, 
 which occurred at the time, caused a delay. But the intention of 
 the king was not carried into effect after the feast, and the Apostle 
 Peter was released in a perfectly unexpected manner. According 
 to the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles, this was owing to a 
 miracle, bait after what we have remarked above, how natural is it to 
 suppose that the king himself desisted from his purpose, and very 
 unexpectedly released the Apostle Peter, because in the interval he 
 
 body ? But wliat inducement could there be to paint tlie disease from which the 
 king died in such glaring colours as to attribute it as it were to the gnawing 
 worms which torment the damned in hell ? (Mark ix. 44, compare Isa. Ixvi. 24.) 
 We may answer this question if we call to mind that ICing Antiochus Epiphanes 
 is reported to have died in the same manner, that king so hated by the Jews, the 
 cruel persecutor of all true worshippers of God, the enemy of true religion, who 
 with presumptuous audacity assumed a hostile attitude towards the Most High. 
 Compare 2 Mace. ix. 5. This deadly enemy of the Jewish name, the tyrannical 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, seems to exist again in the person of King Herod Agrippa, 
 who persecuted the believing disciples, put to death the Apostle James, and 
 intended the same fate for the Apostle Peter ; the overbearing, ungodly adversary, 
 who at last even usurped divine honours. How clearly we see here a legend 
 formed in the Christian interest ; and when we compare a Christian legend so 
 purposely prepared with the narrative of Josephus, what light is thrown on the 
 historical event out of which it arose ! 
 
Chap. VI.] HIS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 163 
 
 had ascertained how unpopular his proceedings were, and how little 
 the execution of the Apostle James had found that favour with the 
 people which he had anticipated. If we can as Uttle doubt the release 
 of the Apostle from prison as his imprisonment, how can we explain 
 it otherwise than by some such sudden turn in affairs; and this seems 
 to be indicated by certain other circumstances spoken of both by 
 the author of the Acts and by Josephus. According to Acts xii. 
 19, King Herod left Jerusalem directly after the release of the 
 Apostle Peter and went to Csesarea. Josephus agrees with this, 
 and says at the same time the third year of his reign was completed.^ 
 As the beginning of his reign was coincident with the beginning of 
 the reign of the Emperor Claudius, i.e. the end of January of the 
 year 41 A.D., we are justified, according to Josephus, in placing the 
 departure of the king to Csesarea at the time in which it is placed 
 by the Acts of the Apostles, directly after Easter, a.d. 44. This 
 departure of the King, who, as Josephus says, was not in the habit 
 of leaving Jerusalem for any length of time, must have been caused 
 by some special reason which determined him to take this step. 
 We must also take into consideration that, before mentioning the 
 king's departure, Josephus says that he had deprived the High 
 Priest Matthias of his office, Antiq. xix. 8. 1. This dismissal 
 must have taken place for some special reason, as Matthias had 
 been appointed High Priest by King Herod himself, under condi- 
 tions which certainly implied friendly relations. (Antiq. xix. 6. 
 4.) After the execution of which Josephus speaks in the former 
 place, and which perhaps is that of James the Less, the High 
 Priest Ananus, as the instigator of the proceedings which had been 
 so much disliked, was deprived of his office. In the case of which 
 we are now speaking, may not the dismissal of the High Priest 
 Matthias have been owing to the same cause ? 
 
 Thus the Apostle Peter was actually released from prison in a 
 perfectly unexpected manner after the affair of James the elder ; 
 but the miraculous way in which this M'as brought about by an 
 
 ' Antiq. xix. 8. 2 : Tptrov 8e ctos ^airiKevovTi ttji oAj/i 'loCSaiaj rren'SripaTai. Kai 
 Traprjv «if ttoKiv Kaicdpetai'. 
 
164 LII']!! AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 angel of the Lord is only a Christian legend or poem, which 
 explains in its own manner the darkness which at that time 
 enveloped the whole matter, and ascribes the happy issue to the 
 direct operation of a higher causality. If the Apostle was unex- 
 pectedly set free, as soon as the release came to be represented as a 
 miracle, it was a short step to represent the intentions of the enemy 
 as having been frustrated in the most surprising manner. On this 
 account not only is the wondering expectation with which all 
 the people waited for the promised show of the public execution 
 brought prominently forward, ver. 11, but it is also stated as a 
 remarkable circumstance that the Apostle was released in the 
 night which preceded his intended execution, ver. 6. Can we 
 wonder that on the next morning when the affair was discovered 
 the greatest commotion ensued, and that the king, thus humiliated 
 before the eyes of the whole people, vented his anger on the 
 soldiers to whose charge the prisoner had been consigned, and 
 caused the death destined for the Apostle to be inflicted on them, 
 ver. 19? In such a case as this, if once the legend takes this direction, 
 everything is turned to account which can heighten the dramatic 
 effect. And we have accordingly here a circumstantial narrative 
 of the measures taken for the most careful watching of the prisoner. 
 Four quaternions of soldiers were told off for the successive watches 
 during the night, so that two soldiers were inside the prison, 
 between whom the prisoner was bound by two chains, and two 
 others stood outside the door, xii. 4, 6. It may be granted that 
 this truly Eoman proceeding was nothing extraordinary on the 
 part of a king accustomed to Eoman manners and customs, though 
 at the same time heedful of national feelings ; but then why are 
 all these details of this strict watch given here, and not in chapter 
 xvi., where one should expect to find them, as being customary in 
 a Roman colony ? Evidently because they would not have accorded 
 with the scene with the keeper of the prison in chapter xvi., 
 whereas in chapter xii. they do good service in showing how 
 important this matter was considered, and what complete pre- 
 cautions were thought to have been taken in order to make the 
 
Chap. VI] HIS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 165 
 
 release of the Apostle from prison impossible. But was there 
 any reason for such great fear and apprehension ? No one could 
 have expected a miracle — the Christians themselves did not think 
 of one/ and if such an expectation had existed, the measures taken 
 would have been thought perfectly useless. But this is just the 
 peculiarity of the story ; as though the enemy had a presentiment 
 of what did really afterwards happen, they take every precaution 
 to make themselves secure against it, and yet only to be the more 
 astounded when they find that all their precautions have been 
 vain. This is evidently a mode of proceeding which involves a 
 peculiar irony in the contrast of the intention with the result, 
 but an irony which can have been inspired only from a Chris- 
 tian standpoint. But if the affair really took place as is here 
 stated, how impossible is it to represent it to ourselves. How 
 badly the four soldiers, placed with such care on guard, must have 
 fulfilled their duty, if so shortly before daybreak they allowed 
 themselves to be so completely overcome with sleep that the 
 Apostle could walk unchallenged through the midst of his keepers 
 lying around in slumber. This must have been shortly before 
 daybreak, because if it had been earlier, the escape would not have 
 been left to be discovered in the morning (xii. 18), but must at 
 the very latest have been detected when the third rerpaSiov was 
 relieved, between the third and fourth night watches. This pro- 
 found sleep of the keepers must therefore have been brought about 
 in a miraculous manner, and in fact the miracle is carefully 
 exhibited in a series of events which have every resemblance to 
 the operations of magic. The Apostle, lying, like his guards, in a 
 deep sleep, is awakened by a blow on the side, suddenly freed from 
 the chains which fall from his hands, stands up, dresses himself, 
 and goes out, without any hindrance, through gates and guards. 
 And even after he has successfully passed through the gates and 
 
 ' The Acts cannot picture strongly enough the great astonishment of the 
 disciples at the Apostle's miraculous release from prison, xii. 13-16. And yet 
 we cannot avoid asking, Why were they so much astonished? must they not 
 rather have expected such a miracle, if one had already happened in a perfectly 
 similar case. Acts v. 19? 
 
166 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 guards of the prison, the iron gate leading into the city is made 
 to spring open before him, as though not to miss this special 
 theatrical effect, which is really a very striking one. The magical 
 effect which a series of miracles so completely out of the sphere of 
 reality must have produced is carefully indicated by the author, 
 when he remarks that the Apostle thought he had seen a vision, 
 and that only after he had again come to his full consciousness 
 was he able to decide exactly between reality and vision — truth 
 and fancy. But we cannot ignore the question how the Apostle, 
 who alone can count here as a witness, could have been so cer- 
 tain that all this had been done by an angel, if he had not been 
 more clearly conscious of what had happened. The miraculous 
 narrative thus bears with it its own refutation. 
 
 If the historical fact to which the two miraculous narratives. Acts 
 xii. and xvi. (as well as the earlier one. Acts v. 19, etc.), may be 
 referred, is in itself very probably true, a further conclusion may 
 be drawn as to the circumstances of the Christian Church at 
 Jerasalem at that time. As the members of this Church still 
 adhered strictly to the Jewish religion, observed its laws and 
 customs, and only differed from the rest of the Jews in believing 
 Jesus to be the Messiah who had appeared, it cannot be supposed 
 that the Jews in Jerusalem found any great offence in them. They 
 were willingly tolerated as long as they did not come to any such 
 openly pronounced breach with the Jewish law as had been the 
 case with Stephen and the Hellenists who were of his way of 
 thinking. But it was otherwise with the chiefs of the Jewish 
 nation. The continued existence of a sect whose Founder they had 
 removed out of the way by a public sentence of death, must have 
 been peculiarly obnoxious to them. It is therefore not improbable 
 that persecutions of the Christians had taken place at an earlier 
 date, and as, according to Josephus, those who held the highest 
 offices were chiefly Sadducees, we may believe the author of the 
 Acts of the Apostles when he says that such oppressive measures 
 generally came from the party of the Sadducees. This party would 
 undoubtedly have taken further steps of this kind if they had 
 
Chap. VI.] HIS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 167 
 
 had full liberty of action, and had they not been restrained partly 
 by fear of the Eoman procxirator, and partly by the disposition 
 of the people. But everything beyond this general indication of 
 the position of affairs at the time is very uncertain. What we find 
 in connection with this is a miraculous narrative, "which must be 
 placed to the account of tradition, or to the peculiar mode of 
 statement employed by the author of the Acts of the Apostles. In 
 any case we must look upon it as a peculiar feature in the Acts, 
 that such important miracles as those we have been considering 
 are always doubled in this work. Nothing extraordinary can 
 happen to Peter which is not repeated in the case of Paul ; and 
 again, there is no distinguishing feature in Paul's history without 
 the exact counterpart being reported of Peter. This general type 
 on which the Acts is constructed is very obviously present in the 
 miracle related in Acts xvi. 
 
CHAPTEK VII. 
 
 THE APOSTLE PAUL IN ATHENS, CORINTH, EPHESUS. — HIS JOURNEY 
 TO JERUSALEM BY MILETUS. — ACTS XVIL-XX. 
 
 Pbom Philippi the Apostle took his way with his two com- 
 panions, Timotheus and Silas, to Thessalonica, and from there to 
 Athens. After a short stay there, he went on to Corinth, where 
 he found a better sphere for his activity, and remained a consider- 
 able time. During the year and a half of his stay there, he founded, 
 under great difficulties, the first important Church in Greece. 
 After a journey to Jerusalem and Antioch, the city of Ephesus 
 became the chief seat of his labours; the results of which, in 
 combating the demoniacal and magical powers of the old religion 
 and its idolatrous worship, were, according to the Acts, so remark- 
 able as to give rise to a public contest between the old and the 
 new faiths. He travelled once more by Macedonia into Greece, 
 and then after a residence of three months set out on that impor- 
 tant journey to Jerusalem, which filled him even then with the 
 most gloomy forebodings, which he expressed to the Ephesian 
 elders whom he summoned to meet him at Miletus. According 
 to the statement of the Acts, the most determined opposition was 
 raised against the Apostle by the hatred of the Jews in every place 
 where he dwelt, either for a long or a short space of time. Aquila, 
 PrisciLla, and ApoUos are known to us in the Epistles of the Apostle 
 as well as from the Acts, so that the two sources may here be 
 compared with each other. He met Aquila, a Jew of Pontus, and 
 his wife Priscilla, in Corinth, when he went there for the first time. 
 
Chap. VII.] JJV ATHENS, COBINTH, ETC. 169 
 
 Apollos, a Jew of Alexandria, with whom AquHa and PriscUla 
 became acquainted at Ephesus, went, when the Apostle took his 
 way through Galatia and Phrygia to Ephesus, and from the latter 
 place to Corinth, where church matters were at that time in a 
 state of ferment, and his presence had a very peculiar influence. 
 In this part of the Acts of the Apostles, as in the rest of that work, 
 the life and work of the Apostle is presented to us partly in his 
 speeches, partly in miracles, in both of which critical examination 
 recognises, through the veil of much foreign matter, a very obscure 
 reflection of the actual history. 
 
 The celebrated speech which the Apostle is said to have delivered 
 at Athens is introduced by a narrative to which historical criticism 
 must take as much exception as it does to the speech itself. The 
 chief reason for this critical doubt is here as elsewhere the evident 
 design and studied arrangement of the narrative. All the well- 
 known characteristic traits of the Athenian character are cleverly 
 and ingeniously pressed into the service, so that the contrast which 
 must have been presented in this brilliant seat of Grecian culture, 
 between Christianity and polytheistic heathenism, and between 
 the Christian and a popular character such as the Athenian, may 
 be brought forward as prominently as possible. How completely 
 the historian carries on his narrative from this point of view is 
 shown from its very commencement. The reigning idea to which 
 all that follows bears reference, namely, the striking contrast 
 between Christianity and heathenism, as the latter appeared in its 
 most brilliant aspect in Athens, is ascribed to the Apostle himselfj 
 when the author represents him as moved by the most intense 
 emotion at the first view of the city so " wholly given to idolatry." 
 The Apostle is described here as acting differently from his usual 
 custom. Instead of waiting for the way to be opened for the 
 preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles through the Jews and 
 proselytes in the synagogue, the Apostle is made to seek an 
 opportunity for religious conversation among those whom he met 
 in the public places ; he disputes with Epicurean and Stoic philoso- 
 phers, adherents of the same philosophical sects which afterwards 
 
170 LIFE AND WORK OF FAUL. [Part I. 
 
 raised the greatest opposition against Christianity, and in all his 
 intercourse with the Athenians they are represented as repeating 
 the behaviour they had already shown on other similar occasions. 
 How clear it is that when the author put these words into the 
 mouths of the Athenians, ^evcov haifiovlwv BoKel KaTayyeKev; 
 elvM, he had before his mind the charge which was brought 
 against Socrates when he was indicted (Xenophon, Memorabil. 
 1. l), ow fiev rj TTo'Xt? vofii^ei Oeovt, ov vofii^wv, erepa Be 
 Kaiva Baifiovia ela^epav : and what does the mocking speech 
 of the Athenians mean, rt av deKoi 6 aTrepfioXdyo'; ovto<; Xeyeiv ; 
 but the light, airy, sophistical talk that serves Aristophanes in 
 the " Clouds " as a pretext for bringing his wit and mockery 
 to bear on the seriousness of the Socratic philosophy, whose 
 founder also was in the eyes of the people a mere <m-epij,o\6yo<!. 
 How strikingly the author paints the known ironical popular 
 wit in his sketch of the Athenian character, when he makes them 
 combine Jesus and the dvdcrTaai'; as a pair of new gods according to 
 the manner of polytheism.^ If the historian wished, as is evidently 
 his intention, to give a general view of the Athenian character, he 
 could not omit their very characteristic irony any more than their 
 equally peculiar curiosity, which he goes on to describe in almost 
 the same words in which it is painted by the old authors them- 
 selves. It could therefore have been nothing but curiosity which 
 awakened in the Athenians a certain interest in the Gospel 
 preached by Paul, and which caused them to listen to a discourse 
 of the Apostle delivered in the Areopagus. But even this appear- 
 ance of the Apostle in the Areopagus throws a new and very curious 
 light on the whole affair, and this is just the point from which we 
 can see the connection of this narrative most distinctly. We must 
 
 1 So must the words, xvii. 18, tox 'l-qa-ovv koI ttjv dvdoTacnv, undoubtedly be 
 taken. Among the modern commentatora on the Acts, Meyer in especial finds it 
 very strange that the philosophers thought the 'Avaa-rams to be a goddess pro- 
 claimed by Paul. "If Luke had meant this in bis explanatory note, hewouldhave 
 indicated it more decidedly ; and would the Athenian philosophers have been so 
 ignorant ?" Of course the author did not mean it to appear as ignorance, but as 
 irony : and then does not the author sufficiently indicate that this is the sense of 
 the expression when he twice puts the article before the word ? 
 
Chap. VII.] Jiv ATHENS, CORINTH, ETC. 171 
 
 ask accordingly, why was it precisely in the Areopagus that the 
 Apostle delivered his discourse ? The most obvious answer un- 
 doubtedly is that to the Areopagitic court of justice was committed 
 the care of matters of religion. The Apostle would be brought to 
 the Areopagus for his legal defence since he was accused of intro- 
 ducing ^eva Bacfiovia. This is what Chrysostom supposes along 
 with other old commentators ; ^701^ avrov eU tov apeiop irdjov oir^ 
 mare fiadeiv a\X oxxre KoKa^eiv, evda at (f)oviKai BiKai. But there 
 is not the least hint of this ; the manner in which the Apostle is 
 treated and ultimately dismissed makes it perfectly clear that 
 curiosity was the only motive which prompted the Athenians to 
 lead him to the Areopagus, for they saw in him only a good- 
 natured enthusiast, not a dangerous heretic. Hence we have been 
 reminded, not without reason, that we must not think of the seat 
 of the court of justice, but merely of the open space at the summit 
 of the hill. In this case also we may suppose that the same irony 
 is shown in the choice of a locality which is displayed in the whole 
 treatment of the Apostle. The narrative represents the Athenians 
 as taking up the affair with an ironical air and pretended gravity 
 (Bwa/ieda '•/vSivaiyri^ rj Kaivr] avTrj r] viro aov XaXov/ievrj SiSa^^ij ; 
 ^evi^ovra yap riva euTcjjepei,^ et? ra? aKoa<; rjfj,a>v' ^ovXofj,e6a ovv 
 ryvuvai, Tt av de\oc ravra elvai, 19-20), and as they are anything 
 rather than serious, so the scene is laid in the Areopagus, for the 
 obvious purpose of contrasting the importance of the place with the 
 evident insignificance of the subject. But just as little as there 
 seems to be any doubt as to why the Apostle was led to the Areopa- 
 gus, so much the more striking is it that the Dionysius converted 
 by the Apostle should be called the Areopagite. This surname 
 would seem to indicate that Dionysius, a member of the Court of 
 Justice, had become acquainted with Christianity as a member of 
 the Court of Justice, and had been converted to the Christian 
 faith at the time when the Apostle delivered his speech before the 
 assembled court. Why should the name be here expressly 
 mentioned, if not to indicate the occasion of his conversion ? Or 
 can it be held as an accidental circumstance that when the Apostle 
 
172 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I, 
 
 ■was led to the Areopagus, one, among the few converted by him, 
 was an Areopagite ? But if he was converted as an Areopagite, 
 then the Apostle must have appeared before the whole assembled 
 Court of Justice. How shall we explain this ambiguity with 
 regard to the occasion of the speech of the Apostle in the Areo- 
 pagus ? The explanation is, I believe, as follows : — Ecclesiastical 
 tradition speaks of a Dionysius with the surname of Areopagite, 
 who was the first Bishop of Athens. According to Eusebius 
 (H. E. iv. 23), Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote an epistle to 
 Athens, as he had done to other churches, in which he admonished 
 the members of the Athenian Church to faith and to a Gospel 
 manner of living, as since their Bishop Publius had died as a 
 martyr in the persecutions of that period, they had become indif- 
 ferent, and had almost fallen away from the Christian faith, until 
 Quadratus, the successor of the martyr Publius, reanimated their 
 faith by his zeaL Eusebius says that in the same epistle Diony- 
 sius mentions Dionysius the Areopagite as the first Bishop of 
 Athens who was converted by the Apostle Paul. The commentators 
 rightly observe on this passage in Eusebius, that if Publius, who 
 died as a martyr under Marcus Aurelius, had been the immediate 
 successor of Dionysius the Areopagite, the latter must have been 
 Bishop of Athens for more than seventy years. There must then have 
 been other Bishops between Dionysius and Publius, but tradition 
 says nothing of them, it speaks only of the first Bishop, Dionysius 
 the Areopagite. Must we look upon our passage in the Acts of the 
 Apostles as the source of this tradition ? We should certainly be 
 obliged to assume this, if we had no other reason for doubting the 
 historical trustworthiness of our narrative contained in it. But, as 
 we have already seen, other reasons do exist, and thus we are 
 warranted to turn the matter the other way and to assume that 
 Dionysius the Areopagite was imported into our passage in the 
 Acts of the Apostles from ecclesiastical tradition, and only on this 
 supposition can the whole scene in the Areopagus be satisfactorily 
 explained. An old ecclesiastical legend mentioned one Dionysius 
 an Areopagite, as among the first who accepted the Christian faith 
 
Chap. VII.] IN ATHENS, CORINTH, ETC. 173 
 
 in Athens ; whether it be that he was really an Areopagite, or 
 that he had only received that surname because it was thought that 
 the man who was so ready to receive Christianity must have been 
 a member of that honourable senate. But in order stiU. further to 
 show the reason of his conversion, his surname gave rise to the 
 tradition that he was converted in the Areopagus itself, and what 
 better occasion could be found for this conversion than when the 
 Apostle came to Athens on his journey from Macedonia to Corinth ? 
 But there could be no doubt that the Apostle had made a public 
 appearance in the Areopagus itself Doubtless the legend, as the 
 author of the Acts of the Apostles found it, gave no further account 
 of the occasion which led to this. So much the more was he 
 therefore at liberty to carry out the idea which the legend of the 
 Areopagite Dionysius had suggested to him. The whole nature 
 of the passage leads to no other supposition than that the author 
 intended to describe, by the reception which the Apostle received 
 in Athens, how Christianity was considered and judged at the time 
 when the author lived, as well by educated people generally, — and 
 the Athenians were the highest example of intellectual culture, — as 
 by the principal philosophical sects, the Epicureans and the Stoics, 
 whose chief seat was also at Athens. Judging from every indica- 
 tion that he gives, there was floating before his mind a time in 
 which Christianity had indeed drawn on itself the observation of 
 the educated and the philosophers, but when it was considered by 
 them as a ridiculous folly and a dream of enthusiasts. The irony 
 which at a later date took so cutting and bitter a tone in Lucian 
 and Celsus, speaks also here, only in a milder and kinder spirit. 
 It is a fact worthy of special remark, that the author makes the 
 doctrine of the resurrection the chief point on which the whole 
 conference between the Apostle and the Athenians turns. From 
 the very beginning this doctrine is maintained against the Gentile 
 opponents as the most characteristic of Christianity. Against it 
 was especially directed the mocking scorn with which the Apostle 
 was met, and as soon as it was introduced into his speech, it was 
 enough to cause the audience to declare that they had had enough 
 
174 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 of him and of his preaching. Here we have exactly the objection 
 which the Gentiles felt to this doctrine as soon as they began to 
 be acquainted with Christianity, and the first persecutions gave 
 occasion for a more distinct expression of the Christian hope of a 
 resurrection, as a compensation for the sufferings they were called 
 on to endure. To such a time as this we must look for the true 
 explanation of this passage. The author of the Acts of the Apostles 
 wished to depict the marked supercilious scorn with which the 
 Gentiles treated Christianity when they had come to be familiar 
 with it. Such a scene as this in Athens was especially suited to 
 such an aim. The ironical inquisitive Athenians, treating all 
 things, even the holiest, in a light and frivolous manner, were the 
 worthiest representatives of this side of heathenism. The occur- 
 rence in the Areopagus, which the traditionally given name of the 
 Areopagite Dionysius seemed to pre-suppose, may therefore not 
 have been intended to be understood seriously, as the author's prin- 
 cipal point of view was a completely different one. Many things are 
 not to be taken literally in poetry and legend, and would need to be 
 looked upon quite differently if considered as they really happened ; 
 and so the author had no scruple on this occasion in representing 
 this solemn venerated spot as having been thrown open to a pubhc, 
 who had gathered together merely to satisfy their curiosity and 
 indulge their love of ridicule. 
 
 The most striking point in the speech, after its carefully designed 
 introduction, is the sudden turn with which, as soon as it arrives 
 at its principal object, namely, the exhortation to accept Christianity, 
 it passes to the doctrine of the resurrection. "We see that this 
 doctrine is purposely introduced at the earliest point at which it 
 was possible to do so, and dwelt upon as the chief doctrine of Chris- 
 tianity, although the Apostle must have known from experience 
 that it was precisely the point adapted to give the most offence to 
 the Athenians. To what purpose then did the speech so studiously 
 dwell upon the resurrection, when the subject might so easily have 
 been avoided, or at least kept more in the background? This 
 speech is commonly praised as a model of the Apostle's apologetic 
 
Chap. VII.] IF ATHENS, CORINTH, ETC. 175 
 
 method, and of his wisdom as a teacher. But has it been also con- 
 sidered that these merits ought to appear in recommending the 
 chief idea which the speaker was anxious to enforce ? Is it then 
 so remarkable a token of a discourse being to the purpose, that 
 before the speaker has arrived at the exposition of his principal 
 idea, the hearers should take so great offence at the contents of his 
 .speech as to go away ? It would rather seem to follow that the 
 Apostle, if he did not on this occasion altogether forget his usually 
 admirable skill as a teacher, cannot have delivered this speech as 
 we possess it. It is only the author who wishes to bring plainly 
 before us the obstacle which this doctrine of the resurrection pre- 
 sented to educated Gentiles like the Athenians, in conformity with 
 the main idea which he is carrying out in this passage. Even that 
 part of the speech in which interpreters think they perceive most 
 clearly the Apostle's renowned wisdom in teaching, presents a totally 
 different aspect if we consider the doctrine of the resurrection, men- 
 tioned at the conclusion, to be the chief topic of the speech. It 
 cannot be disputed that, as is alleged for the credit of the speech, 
 the speaker conformed as nearly as possible to the religious opinions 
 of his audience, placed himself as much as possible at the same 
 standpoint with them, in order by these means more easily to win 
 them over to his own views. Although the contents of this speech 
 are so strictly monotheistic, it contains many propositions whose 
 leading ideas are found in almost the same words in Greek and 
 Roman authors. The speaker appeals, in support of one of the 
 principal ideas of the speech, to the words of a Greek poet, thus 
 showing how much he wished to find a common ground between 
 himself and his hearers for mutual approximation. This being his 
 aim, it was quite to be expected that he should represent the age 
 of polytheism as a time of ignorance, which God was willing to 
 overlook, provided that the Gentiles would now change their mind 
 and turn to Him. The necessity of such a conversion is also 
 deduced from an idea which lay within the religious circle of ideas 
 of the Gentiles — the idea of a future retribution. Up to this point 
 the speech proceeded as well as possible ; and the result it aimed at 
 
176 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 was all but won, when, by a word dropped incautiously by the 
 speaker, all was changed and he was cut short, it appears in the 
 middle of the sentence he had begun. We can only accept this as 
 the natural historical course of the affair, if it be credible that the 
 characteristic Christian doctrine of the resurrection was even at that 
 time as repugnant to the Gentile mind as is here represented, and 
 that the Apostle was guilty of so striking an offence against apostohc. 
 wisdom in teaching. But as both these suppositions are equally 
 improbable, we can only see in this speech an ingeniously intro- 
 duced effect of the author. Though the points of resemblance which 
 the author makes the Apostle point out between the religious 
 consciousness of the Gentiles and his own monotheistic stand- 
 point were true and manifold, yet the impression which the Chris- 
 tian doctrine of the resurrection made on the educated Gentiles was 
 to appear harsh and offensive. The resurrection of Jesus, the fact 
 which to Christians was the greatest evidence of their Christian 
 faith, made the whole of Christianity appear to the Gentiles the 
 most incredible thing in the world, and a ridiculous folly. To give 
 a graphic picture of this side of the Gentile mode of regarding 
 Christianity is the chief design of the author of the Acts of the 
 Apostles in this passage. All the details of the episode serve this 
 design, and the speech put into the mouth of the Apostle is espe- 
 cially intended to further it. 
 
 Among the individual features which show us the unhistorical 
 character of this speech, as well as that of the whole passage, I think 
 we must specify in particular " the Unknown God " of the Athen- 
 ians. The fruitless trouble which interpreters have given them- 
 selves with regard to the historical identification of this " Unknown 
 God " is well known. All that can be historically proved is that in 
 Athens, as well as in other places in Greece, there were altars which 
 were dedicated to unknown Gods — that is, to Gods whom men did 
 not know how to name. As it admits of no denial that unknown 
 Gods, in the plural, would not have fulfilled the aim of the Apostle's 
 argument, some of the modern scholars have expressly postu- 
 lated as a historical fact the existence of an " Unknown God " in 
 
CiTAP. VII.] IN ATHENS, CORINTH, ETC. 177 
 
 Athens. It is maintained that the wyvo}<na> 6ea must be literally 
 correct, or it would compromise Paul as a a-7repiJ,o\dyo<;, and that it 
 can hardly be imagined that the Apostle would, at the climax of 
 his noble speech, have brought before the Athenians a deliberate 
 falsehood.^ Neander also has argued on this side : " If we investi- 
 gate with care all the records of antiquity, and compare the various 
 phases of polytheism, we can find no real foundation for any 
 denial of the existence of such an altar, actually bearing the inscrip- 
 tion to which Paul refers. Altars may indeed have been raised on 
 some occasions and dedicated to an ' unknown God,' when it was 
 not known which god had been provoked, and therefore was to be 
 appeased" (page 190). Of course this is in itself not impossible, 
 but criticism must not be content with mere possibility, but must 
 endeavour to find out the probable. But as for the historical credi- 
 bility of our passage, what right have we to assume as indubitable 
 the very point which is in question ? What right have we to pay 
 so little heed to the testimony of the ancients who only speak of 
 the ar/vacTTot 6eoi, and not of an cvyva3(Tro<i 6eo<;, as to presuppose, 
 in spite of their silence, the worship of an ar/vcoaro^ ^eo? as a 
 historical fact ? Is not this supposition the more arbitrary, as it is 
 very conceivable that the a<yvcocrTo<i ^eo? of the Acts of the Apostles 
 may have originated in the arjvuxTToi, 6eol of the ancients ? In 
 reality no other theory can be accepted if we consider the matter 
 carefully. Neander regards it as a proof of the Apostle's trust- 
 worthiness that the altar he refers to is not dedicated to the 
 unknown God, but to an, unknown, indefinite, god, but this proves 
 just the contrary. The unhistorical character of the whole passage 
 is admitted, as it must be, when it is granted that the altar with 
 the inscription ar/pwa-Tco dea> was not dedicated expressly to " the 
 unknown God," but to one whose name was accidentally not known ; 
 in this case how can we overlook the fact that the Apostle must have 
 been guilty of open violation of the truth if he declared this very 
 God to be the One whom he preached, the true God, the Creator of 
 heaven and earth ? If he were only " an unknown God," he would 
 1 Compare Meyer on this passage. 
 VOL. I. M 
 
178 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part I, 
 
 not be distinguished from the rest of the known gods by his in- 
 dividual character, but only by the accidental circumstance that his 
 name was not known, or that no special name had been given him ; 
 he would be one of the same class with the rest of the deities of the 
 polytheistic faith, from whom the true God of monotheism is differ- 
 ent in every essential point, and it is evident that there may quite 
 as well be several unknown gods of this sort as one. If we look 
 at the matter in this light we can see why, in the passages quoted 
 from the ancients, the altars mentioned are always to " unknown 
 gods," and never to "an unknown God." Polytheistic religion 
 naturally implied this : it could nowhere rest in one God ; on the 
 same grounds on which it presumed there might be one unknown 
 God, it also presumed that there might be several. In this worship 
 of the nameless and unknown there is betrayed in a very remark- 
 able manner the unsatisfying nature of polytheism, that innate 
 misgiving that there does exist something of which the conscious 
 knowledge and name are still wanting ; in other words, that nega- 
 tive nature of its principles which prevents polytheism from being 
 more than a step in the transition to monotheism. This thought, 
 which is the true one for the Apostle's line of argument, and for 
 which it would not matter whether he started from ayvaxmi 6eol 
 in the plural, or from one a.'^voiaro'i ^eo? only, cannot be traced in 
 the account in the Acts of the Apostles, where the chief point in the 
 Apostle's argument undoubtedly lies in the unity of the ayvaa-rcK 
 Oeo';} Such a confusion between the ajvaa-Tot 6eol, who can be 
 found in history, and the ajvtoaTo<; 6eo^, who is so unhistorical and 
 foreign to the nature of polytheism, could only have been ventured on 
 
 1 Wten Neander (p. 263, Bohn 188) says, " Paul used this inscription, in order 
 to attach a deeper meaning to it, as a point of connection, to indicate the higher hut 
 indistinct longing -which lies at the root of polytheism," it must be remarked on 
 the other hand that in any case — even assuming the theory of a deeper meaning, 
 which the Athenians at any rate were scarcely in a condition to appreciate — there 
 remains a striking incorrectness in identifying this " unknown God" with the God 
 of the Old Testament ; such an identification could have no probability except it 
 were warranted by the inscription. As soon as we are obliged to argue from the 
 unknown one to the unknown several, we see traces of design rather than of depth 
 of reasoning. 
 
Chap. VII.] IN ATHENS, CORINTH, ETC. 179 
 
 by an author who stood at a distance from the events related, and 
 had not before his eyes, as the Apostle Paul would certainly have 
 had, the fear of being refuted there and then. It is easy to see that 
 this stands in very close connection with the tendency in the speech 
 to make the Apostle bring forward as much as possible those points 
 on which the religious consciousness of the Athenians most nearly 
 approached to Christianity. To this end the author made use of 
 the fact of which he was aware, that in Athens unknown gods were 
 worshipped. But at the same time he imagined that the only way 
 for him to express the very true thought that was floating in his 
 mind was to substitute ayvwaro^ for ayvcocrroi, and as soon as the 
 plural had given place to the singular, the expression thus 
 ingeniously altered suggested that this aryvcoa-ro^ deo<; might be 
 turned into the true God of the Jewish-Christian faith. 
 
 The second speech which we have here to consider, that farewell 
 speech which the Apostle is said to have delivered to the Elders 
 of the Ephesian Church whom he had summoned to Miletus be- 
 fore his last journey to Jerusalem, bears also the undoubted im- 
 press of a later time. How could the idea occur to the Apostle to 
 deliver such a farewell speech and to summon the Ephesian Elders 
 to Miletus for the express purpose ? Could he at that time fore- 
 see with the definiteness and certainty expressed in the speech, 
 that he stood at the goal of his apostolic course, that his work was 
 ended, and that none of those amongst whom he had hitherto 
 preached the kingdom of God would see his face again ? Is this 
 same feeling, this same view of his course as being already closed, 
 exhibited by the Apostle later on ? When he saw himself at 
 Jerusalem in danger of falling into the hands of the Jews and of 
 being offered up as a victim to their hatred, would he have 
 appealed to Caesar for any other reason than to escape the danger 
 threatening him in Jerusalem, and to secure with the preservation 
 of his life the continuation of his apostolic work by a just decision 
 of his cause in Eome ? Does not the Acts of the Apostles itself 
 (xxiii. 11) represent the Apostle as cherishing, even after his im- 
 prisonment, the joyful confidence that he should yet bear witness 
 
180 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 to the cause of the Gospel not only at Jerusalem but also at Rome ? 
 What could warrant this confidence if, according to the express 
 assertion in this speech, he saw in the imprisonment he suffered 
 at Jerusalem the end of his apostolic work ? And what completely 
 different views as to his position and to the future awaiting him 
 did the Apostle entertain not long before, when in writing the 
 Epistle to the Eomans he spoke in the most cheerful manner of 
 the journey which he intended making to Jerusalem, and at the 
 same time passed so lightly over the probable dangers, without, 
 however, seeking to ignore them {irapaKaXSi he vfia^, dBeX^ol — 
 avvaycovi.aaa'dai, fioi ev Tal<; irpoaevyal'; virep e/xov Trpoi tov 6eov, 
 iva pvadS) aiTO tCov aTrei-GovvTcov ev rrj lovBaia, Eomans xv. 30, 
 31), that he connected the fortunate completion of this journey, 
 which he confidently hoped for, with the plan of a further journey 
 into Spain and the West, Eomans xv. 22-32. There is no trace 
 whatever here of that utterly sorrowful picture of the future which 
 floated before the mind of the Apostle in the farewell speech at 
 Miletus : it is rather a clear, joyful, hopeful view which he takes 
 of it ; he hopes to return from Jerusalem, and visit the Eoman 
 Christians, ev ifXripbafiaTi evXoyoaf tov Xpiarov (29), ev vapa 
 (32), evidently quite a different x^pd from that with which (Acts 
 XX. 24) he is ready to reXeicoaai tov Bpd/j,ov — Kal ttjv Blukovuiv — 
 BiafiapTvpacrOai to evayyeXiov} Can we imagine that the 
 Apostle's position and frame of mind eould have so completely 
 changed in so short a space of time ? It cannot be said that the 
 words uttered by the Apostle in this farewell speech, with regard 
 to the future that lay before him, were merely vague forebodings, 
 the results of the temporarily depressed state of his feelings on 
 that occasion, and that on that account they need not be too 
 minutely compared with what actually followed. This cannot be 
 maintained ; for not only is the speech a farewell, not only does 
 it quite come up to the idea of a final separation, but everything 
 
 ' I abstain here from uttering my doubts aa to the authenticity of this part 
 of the Epistle to Eomans, as in any case this argument, Kar avBpamov, is quite 
 to the point. 
 
Chap. VII.] IN ATHENS, COBINTH, ETC. 181 
 
 it indicates regarding the impending fate of the Apostle agrees so 
 exactly with what actually occurred that it is impossible to look 
 on the words as the expression of a vague, casual presentiment. 
 The Apostle already sees himself bound in spirit on his way to 
 Jerusalem. Every city through which his way led him brought 
 Jerusalem before him, and awakened in him the thoughts of bonds 
 and imprisonment. Although the several circumstances which 
 led to his imprisonment at Jerusalem were of course still in the 
 distance, yet the chief fact itself stood clearly before his mind 
 exactly as it reaUy afterwards occurred — the fact that with his 
 arrival at Jerusalem a time of captivity would begin, which would 
 set a limit to his free apostolic work for ever. How could he have 
 foreseen this so distinctly then, or have been able so exactly to 
 predict what did not take shape till four years afterwards, and even 
 then, it is probable, in a manner totally unexpected by the Apostle ? 
 Must not this incline us to think that the speech was not really so 
 delivered by the Apostle as we have it, but only put into his 
 mouth by the author posi eventum ? This theory is supported also 
 by some very trustworthy criteria, which point to a later date of 
 composition. The irpea^vTepot, Trj'; iKK\7]a-la<; (1 7), the eiriaKOTroi, 
 whom TO Uvevfia to ' Ayiov edero Troifiaiveiv Tr)v eicKXrjaiav tov 
 Kvplov, ^v •jrepie'jroi7]<jaro Bia tov at/taTo? tov c^iov (28), are here 
 invested with an importance of which there is no trace in the 
 genuine Epistles of the Apostle Paul. The more weight must 
 be laid on this as it is connected with another point, which, 
 as it was closely allied with it in reality, is also allied with 
 it here. The exhortations to watchfulness and faithful care for 
 the church which the departing Apostle here gives, were addressed 
 especially to the Trpea^vTepoi, or eiriaKovoi, because, as the author 
 represents him as saying to them, xx. 29, iXevaovTai fisTa T'qv 
 a(f)t^iv fiov XvKot ^apei'i ek v/xa?, fir] (peiBo/ievoi tov iroiiiviov km 
 e^ iifj,a>v avTwv dvaaT-rjcrovTai avBpei; XaXowTe<; BiecrTpa/j,/j,eva, tov 
 aTToa-irav tov<; fiaOijTa^ oTrtcrci) avToiv. That by these dangerous 
 wolves so destructive to the flock are meant false teachers there 
 can be no doubt ; but we cannot overlook the fact that they are such 
 
182 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I, 
 
 false teachers as arise in the midst of the Christian Church itself, 
 and draw disciples after them by departure from orthodoxy. How 
 distinctly the existence of sects of heretics is here indicated, as 
 they existed certainly not before the close of the first century, hut 
 more probably at the beginning of the second, as if this had been 
 a spreading evil in the Church at that time. But of all this we 
 find no trace in the genuine Epistles of the Apostle, which only 
 speak of other kinds of false teachers and opponents of the Apostle. 
 Only in the so-called Pastoral Epistles of the Apostle is there some- 
 what of a parallel to this passage, but the less doubt there is 
 of their being spurious, and of their date being far removed from 
 the apostolic period, the more distinctly does their agreement with 
 the Acts of the Apostles on this point prove that this speech also 
 bears the stamp of a later period; and we are not surprised to 
 find that the author himself could not entirely conceal the fact of 
 the difference of date, as he delays the appearance of these dangerous 
 heretics till after the departure of the Apostle (/xera rrjv a(j)i^lv 
 fiov, 29). The conclusion is obvious that throughout this speech 
 that which is represented as a prophetic seeing of the Future on 
 the part of the Apostle, is really a vaticinium post eventum, of which 
 he is represented as the speaker. 
 
 It is therefore clear that the author of the Acts of the Apostles 
 fixed upon the time when the Apostle Paul, on his last journey to 
 Jerusalem, came into the neighbourhood of the church in whose 
 midst he had so long laboured, in order to make him deliver a 
 formal and solemn farewell speech, and in it, before these witnesses, 
 to give an account of his apostolic mission up to that time. This 
 was a moment full of importance, a critical turning-point in the 
 life of the Apostle : he was leaving the chief theatre of his 
 apostolic activity to which he was bound by so many solemn ties 
 of the Past and thoughts of the Future. His departure from this 
 sphere of labour was at the same time his farewell to his 
 apostolic career ; he was now for the last time the Apostle, working 
 free and uncontrolled, and immediately afterwards there was to 
 begin for him a period of imprisonment from which, however long 
 
Chap. VII.] IN ATHENS, COBINTR, ETC. 183 
 
 it lasted, he was never again to be free. In this solemn light did 
 this occasion appear to the author of the Acts of the Apostles, 
 when from his own standpoint he reviewed the course of the 
 events which had followed in such close connection from one 
 pregnant event ; and he believed that it was his duty as a thought- 
 ful author, following the development of events with all attention, 
 to represent this crisis in its full significance and solemnity. But 
 only from the standpoint of a later time could the affair be thus 
 considered. However much the principles enunciated may be 
 worthy of the Apostle, — though the feelings and thoiights he is 
 made to express, and the whole scene presented to us may be 
 beautiful, elevating, tender, and moving, — it is to the author, not 
 to the Apostle, that all must be referred, and we must even hold it 
 to be extremely doubtful whether anythiug corresponding to this 
 scene ever occurred at all. The fact that only the elders and 
 bishops were summoned by the Apostle as representatives of the 
 Church over which they presided shows the spirit of a later 
 time. If the speech was not really so delivered, the occurrences 
 which followed at its conclusion (36-38) must share its fate. 
 We have here a striking instance how well the author of the 
 Acts of the Apostles understood how to paint in living colours a 
 situation so full of emotion, but at the same time to what extent he 
 thought himself warranted to avail himself of his literary freedom. 
 The parallel with the Apostle Peter, which is generally kept in 
 view, is not directly apparent in the two speeches now under con- 
 sideration ; stiU they must be reckoned as apologetic. Such a 
 picture of the Apostle's activity, showing how it went forth in 
 every direction, and was everywhere more or less successful, such 
 a description of the devotion and self-sacrifice with which he 
 applied himself to his office,^ can only tend to the renown of the 
 
 1 A special passing reference to Peter may, however, be contained in the words, 
 XX. 20, oihkv viT€a-TeCkafi.r]v rav a-vncpfpovTaP, tov firi a.vayye'ikm Vfiiv KoX 6ifia|at 
 ijaas bmiodla koi <aT oUovs. Compare 27. It seems that that rectitude in the 
 oflBce of teacher, and freedom from aU taint of hypocrisy, which the Jewish 
 Christians claimed for their Peter in order to defend him from the reproach of the 
 vTroerreXXetv, Gal. ii. 12, is here claimed for the Apostle Paul as well. 
 
184 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part 1. 
 
 Apostle, and to the dispersion of the prejudices conceived against 
 him. But there is no question that we find the apologetic parallel 
 between the two Apostles again, when in the same section of the 
 Acts of the Apostles we turn from the speech to the miracles, and 
 to other tokens of the apostolic activity. 
 
 The first narrative we have to deal with here. Acts xix. 1, is one 
 of the most obscure and difficult parts of the Acts of the Apostles, 
 and can only be rightly understood from the point of view of this 
 parallel. The question is about disciples of John who had only 
 been baptised with the baptism of John, but received baptism in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus from the Apostle Paul. To this class 
 belongs also the Alexandrine ApoUos, mentioned xviii. 25, for it 
 is. said of him also that he had only known the baptism of John. 
 What conception are we to form of these disciples of John ? 
 On one side these men are described as Christians, they are even 
 called disciples, fiaOrjTol (which expression cannot possibly be 
 taken in any other sense than the general one, and must mean 
 disciples of Jesus), ver. 1, and also believers, ■7naTevaavTe<;, ver. 2 ; 
 and it is said of Apollos, xviii. 25, not only that he was instructed 
 in the doctrine of the Lord, but that he taught the things of the 
 Lord, and enforced them with all the fervour of his spirit. 
 On the other hand, we have indications that these men were 
 not precisely Christians. They were baptised in the name of 
 the Lord Jesus, because John, whose baptism alone they knew, 
 had only baptised them into the faith of one who was to come 
 after him. That this One who was to follow John had really now 
 come seems to have been still unknown to these disciples of John. 
 Although Apollos appears to have been acquainted not only with 
 the doctrine, but with the person of the Lord (ra -Kepi tov Kvplov, 
 xviii. 25), yet his knowledge must have been very incomplete and 
 imperfect, as Aquila and Priscilla undertook to instruct him more 
 exactly in the divine doctrine. How can we believe both these state- 
 ments and unite them in a coherent account ? Olshausen holds 
 that these disciples of John " formed a middle party between those 
 adherents of John who, like the Apostles, had identified themselves 
 
Chap. VII.] IN ATHENS, CORINTS, ETC. 185 
 
 unreservedly with the Church, and those who openly opposed Chris- 
 tianity, making the Baptist the Messiah, and who were afterwards 
 known as Zabians. This middle party had indeed been led by the 
 Baptist to Jesus as the Messiah, and had been warmed by his light, 
 but they knew nothing further about him, probably owing to the 
 journeys which they made into foreign lands before the outpouring 
 of the Holy Spirit." But, in the first place, this is not very probable 
 in itself, and in the second it does not meet the case of Apollos, 
 of whom it is expressly said that he eKoKei, Koi eElSaaKev aKpi^Sx; 
 ra trepi rov Kvpiov. How could this be said of him, if he knew 
 nothing more of Jesus than what John the Baptist hinted about 
 him, and when he had at last an opportunity of learning t^v o^ov tov 
 Kvpiov, how could he remain unacquainted with the most important 
 thing of all ? Equally vague is the relation of these disciples of 
 John to the Holy Spirit. According to Olshausen, the meaning of 
 their words is that their notion of God was still that of a rigid, 
 self-contained, incommunicable unity, and that they had no insight 
 into the distinctive properties of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 which arise out of the essential nature of Spirit, and without which 
 God cannot be apprehended as a living God who communicates and 
 reveals himself. But even as Jews they must have known of the 
 Holy Spirit as the principle of divine revelation, while we find them 
 afiBrming, xix. 2, dw' ovBe et Ilvevfia ayiov ecrnv, rjKovaajxev. Un- 
 doubtedly these words can only be understood as referring to the 
 imparting of the Holy Spirit as the peculiar principle of Chris- 
 tianity, but this explanation fails to give us a satisfactory and con- 
 sistent notion of what happened, unless we take it that the signs of 
 the Holy Spirit which we are to think of here are those manifesta- 
 tions which the Acts regards as the essential and characteristic 
 token of his presence, namely, the \a\elv 7X(0(7c7ats and the 
 7rpo(j)7)Teveiv. It was of these that they knew nothing, and this is 
 what distinguishes them as disciples of John from the Christian 
 (jLaO-nTal in the more restricted sense. The best illustration of the 
 passage is to be found in xi. 15, where Peter says that as soon as 
 he began to speak.in the house of Cornelius, the Holy Ghost fell 
 
186 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 on Cornelius and on the Gentiles who were with him, in the same 
 manner as it had done on them, the Apostles, at the beginning, and 
 that he then remembered the words of the Lord : — 'IcoaVi/ijs fiev 
 ejBaiTTi.cTev vSari, vfj,eU Be ^aTTTiaO-qcreaOe ev Tlvevfmrt, dryiq). Here 
 we see distinctly what we have to understand when the Acts 
 speaks of the ^d-n-r tafia 'Icodvvov and the ^aTmcrfui et? ro bvo/ia 
 Kvpiov 'I'Tjaov. As in the case of Cornelius and those who were 
 baptised with him, the descent of the Holy Spirit was at once made 
 known by the XaXelv yXwcrcrat? and the trpocfiTjreveiv, so also in the 
 case of the disciples of John. Thus though a man may be acquaiuted 
 with the doctrine of the Lord and a believer in him, yet if he has 
 not yet experienced these operations of the Spirit he is merely at the 
 stage of the baptism of John ; he does not become a Christian in 
 the fullest sense till he is baptised with the Holy Spirit as well. 
 But this is not the whole of the explanation we require : we must 
 seek for some clearer light on these disciples of John. The \a\e2v 
 r/Kw(T(7afi and the -rrpoi^rjTeveiv, in the sense in which the author of 
 the Acts unquestionably uses them in chap, ii., can only he held to 
 be a mythical representation of the operation of the Holy Spirit. 
 Now if in this case we try to substitute the thing itself for the 
 mythical veil of it, we find that we have no characteristic mark 
 that could serve to distinguish the disciples of John from other 
 Christians. What are we to think of them, if they were Chris- 
 tians, but Christians on a lower level than the rest, in that the 
 Christian inspiration did not manifest its presence in them in the 
 same lively manner as in other Christians ? This inferiority must 
 have had its root in a defective Christian instruction and life, and 
 how could this form a distinct criterion to mark them off from other 
 Christians ? At that time, as at every time, we may assume that 
 Christians were divided into the less perfect and the more perfect, — 
 into those who were moved in a deep and living way by the Chris- 
 tian principle and those who felt it much less profoundly. Thus 
 everything depends on the sense in which the Acts speaks of 
 XaXelv ryXwcraaK and -n-po^rjTevew, and only so far as we take these 
 mythical symbols to have been actual realities, can we suppose that 
 
Chap. VII.] in ATHENS, COBINTE, ETC. 187 
 
 the disciples of John were a peculiar class of Christians. This 
 appears unmistakably in the case of ApoUos, who is associated 
 with them. Let us read the description of him given us, xviii. 
 25,26, without the words eVto-Ta/iei/o? fidvov to ^d-n-ncr/xa 'ladvvov, 
 which are evidently intended merely to make the transition from 
 ApoUos to the disciples of John, who are spoken of immediately 
 after, and to identify him with them as one of the same class ; and 
 does not the account of Apollos then become clear and consistent, 
 without anything being lost ? We then find ApoUos to have been 
 an Alexandrian who, as was to be expected, did not adhere to the 
 strict Judaism of the Jerusalem party, but who had not yet become 
 acquainted with Pauline Christianity, nearly as he approached it, 
 and easy as it was for him to adopt it. This form of Christianity 
 he first learned from AquUa and Priscilla, the intimate friends of 
 the Apostle, and thus he left the peculiar isolated position he had 
 hitherto held as a sort of intermediate party between the Jewish 
 Apostles and the Apostle of the Gentiles, and attached himself to the 
 Apostle Paul, as we see from the Epistles to the Corinthians. Is 
 not this a perfectly clear and satisfactory account of him, and does 
 not the ^d-Trna-fia 'Icodvvov envelop him in obscurity ? We cannot 
 help thinking that the peculiar phenomenon which was found in 
 the history of ApoUos suggested to the writer his notion of the 
 disciples of John : in the form in which they are here presented 
 they cannot possibly have existed. As distinguished from the 
 ^diTTiafjia 'ladvvov, which is mentioned in the case of ApoUos, the 
 ^dTTTicr/xa et? to ovo/j,a tov Kvpiov 'Itjo-ov has now assumed the 
 form of a \aXecv 'y\waa-ai<i and a Tj-po^Teveiv, which manifest 
 themselves in a special class of Christians. This recurrence of the 
 speaking with tongues is, as we easUy see, the point of the whole 
 narrative; it is for this purpose that the disciples of John are 
 brought upon the stage. Now, what is the author's object in thus 
 bringing up once more the XaXelv yXwaaaK ? It is evidently done 
 for the sake of the Apostle Paiil. It is the imposition of his hands 
 that has this miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost for its im- 
 mediate result. Thus in the case of Apollos, whose ^dirTia-fj.a 
 
188 LIFH AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 'Iwdvvov required to be supplemented by the (SaTrrtcr/ia et? to ovofia 
 Tov Kvpiov 'I'qaoii as well as that of the others, we read neither of 
 baptism and imposition of hands nor of any XaXelv •yXaxrcraii; or 
 'n-pojyr^Teveiv, since Aquila and Priscilla could not represent the 
 Apostle in these particulars. As it is only the Apostle whose 
 laying on of hands produces such an effect, this is a clear proof of 
 his genuine Apostolic character. This is what the author of the 
 Acts wants to bring out, and for no other reason than that the 
 Apostle Paul may not be found wanting in any distinction which 
 the Apostle Peter enjoyed. The Acts represents that by the con- 
 version of the first Gentile, Cornelius, Peter became an Apostle to 
 the Gentiles, and had precedence of Paul, the special Apostle to the 
 Gentiles in that capacity; and as the view of the Acts on the 
 XaXelv j\a)a(Tat<; is that it occurred only where the Holy Ghost 
 manifested its operations in a new class of converts to Christianity, 
 a 'KaXetv yXwaaaf; must have taken place in connection with what 
 Peter did at the conversion of Cornelius. The conversion of Cor- 
 nelius was, according to the Acts, one of the most brilliant episodes 
 in the apostolical career of Peter, and the manifestation of the Holy 
 Ghost in so conspicuous a manner upon that occasion was a prin- 
 cipal element in his triumph. Now though Paul was placed second 
 to Peter as an Apostle to the Gentiles, yet he was as much as 
 possible to be made equal to him too ; and so the XaXeZv •yX-toairaK; 
 had to be given to him as a direct operation of the Holy Ghost 
 which accompanied and attested his Apostolic activity. But to 
 what class of men was this fresh XaXelv <y\wcr<Tai<i to be represented 
 as having been imparted ? The first occasion when it was bestowed 
 was the first Pentecost, and those whom it then showed to be the 
 organs of the Spirit given by the risen Jesus were converts from 
 Judaism. On the second occasion, at the conversion of CorneUus, 
 it had proved the same of the first-fruits of the Gentiles. Now if 
 the XaXelv jXfocraai,i; was to have the same significance as on these 
 two occasions, it had to be imparted to a new class of men, com- 
 posed of neither Jews nor Gentiles. The disciples of John seemed 
 to meet these conditions ; they formed a peculiar third class of 
 
Chap. VII.] IN ATHEK8, CORINTH, ETC. 189 
 
 half-believers in addition to the class of unbelieving Jews and the 
 class of unbelieving Gentiles. They were not Gentiles (for they 
 were born Jews), nor Jews like other Jews (for they believed in 
 Jesus), and yet they were not Christians, for the Holy Spirit had 
 not yet manifested itseK in them as in other Christians. They were 
 thus a third class of men, half- Christians, who were now to be made 
 full Christians by the \aXelv yXaiaaaK. So simple is the solution 
 of the strange enigma of these disciples of John when we refer the 
 different elements of the problem to the ruling idea of the author, 
 without remembering which all must be dark and unintelligible, 
 namely, to make good the parallel between the two Apostles by a 
 new and striking demonstration of the Apostle Paul's apostolic 
 authority and power. 
 
 Besides Antioch, which was the Apostle's starting-point, and 
 whither he returned from time to time as he also did to Jerusalem 
 (xviii. 22), the Acts represents Corinth and Ephesus as the chief 
 scenes of his activity. In each of these towns the Apostle spent 
 a considerable time, ceasing altogether from travel. The city of 
 Ephesus, however, was the scene of the Apostle's most brilliant 
 and successful labours. Here, after he left Corinth, the Apostle 
 took up his residence, and spent two whole years ; here, as the 
 farewell speech at Miletus shows, he found his true sphere of labour. 
 Here, accordingly, the author of the Acts reports not only the 
 XaXetv yXuaa-aiq of which we have spoken, but also a number of 
 miracles and other effects accompanying the Apostle's preaching, 
 which attest its splendid success, and contribute to the glorification 
 of the Apostle in the same way as the wonderful works of Peter, 
 narrated v. 15, sq. During the Apostle Paul's two years' residence 
 at Ephesus, we are told all the dwellers in Asia, Jews and Greeks, 
 heard the word of the Lord ; and God worked miracles of no 
 ordinary nature by the hands of Paul. Even handkerchiefs and 
 other linen that had come in direct contact with the person 
 of Paul were carried to sick persons, and their sicknesses 
 departed from them and the evil spirits went out of them. How 
 remarkable is the similarity between this description of the 
 
190 LIFE AISID WOBK OF PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 brilliant success of Paul and what we hear of the Apostle Peter 
 in the passage v. 16. How closely analogous is the purely mythi- 
 cal trait ; in the one case it was the shadow of Peter which cured 
 the sick when it fell on them, here it is the handkerchiefs and 
 linen of the Apostle that manifest an inherent miraculous power, 
 like the relics of a later age. "We have also a good instance here 
 of how exaggeration is inseparable from imitation ; the details 
 here are so apocryphal that we might despair of finding any 
 historical element in the story at all. Among the miraculous 
 deeds of the Apostle Peter we find the expulsion of unclean 
 spirits (v. 16). But in our passage the demons themselves work to 
 promote the faith of Christ, by punishing the abuse of the name 
 of Jesus, which certain Jewish exorcists had ventured oa^ The 
 demoniac, whose demon seven Jewish exorcists had endeavoured 
 to cast out in the name of Jesus, was outraged at the impurity of 
 their motives in what they did (for demons possess a higher intelli- 
 gence), and fell upon the exorcists, treating them with such violence 
 
 ^ Even in the Gospels, demons are said to be cast out in tte name of Jesus (cf. 
 for example Mark xvi. 17), yet tte power over demons here ascribed (Acts six. 
 13) to the ovojia tov 'Kvpiov 'Irjaov is such as we do not find till the post-apostolic 
 age. Compare on this point Justin's Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, ch. 85. 
 Christ, it is here said, is the Kvpios t<ov bwapecov. oj? koi vvv i< ratv vtt oylnv 
 yevopevoiv paov vpas TreKrOrjvai, eav BeXrjre. Kara yap tov ovoparos avTov tovtov, 
 TOV vlov TOV Geoii, Kal irpcoTOTOKOV TrdoTjs KTiaeas Kol Sia -jrapBevov yfVvrjBevTOS Koi 
 7ra6r)Tov yevopivov avdpwirov, Koi a-TavpcadevTos eVt Tlovriov JJiKaTov viro ToO \aov 
 vpav^ KoX d-rroSavovTos kol dvaordvTos eV vsKpatv, Ka\ dvalidvTos els tov oipavbv nav 
 ^atpovLOV €^opKi^6p€vov vLKorai kcli {nrorda'a'fTai. Origen, c. Cels., 1. 25, whilst he 
 speaks of the occult importance of the name, adds : t^s opoias ex"""' "■^P* 
 ovopaTav <^tXo(TO(^ta9 Koi 6 fjpeTepos *lr](rovs ov to ovopa pvpiovs ^^rj ivapySii 
 caipaTai baipovas e^ekdo-ai -^Irv^av Koi awpaTcov, fvfpyrjcrav €tff eKeiVouf, d<jt 
 S>v aTrrjXdBija-av. Is not this the idea of the passage in the Acts now under con- 
 sideration ? By the vloi Sxei^a 'lovBaiov apxi-^peos inTa are generally understood 
 seven real sons of a Jewish High-Priest (Olshausen makes the apxi^p^vs a chief 
 Eabhi, who, perhaps, was the head of the Ephesian Jewish community), but with- 
 out doubt the expression wiof ought to be taken in the sense in which, according 
 to the Jewish mode of writing, the scholars of a master were called his "sons." 
 The High Priest Sceva may therefore have been held by these and other Jewish 
 exorcists as a celebrated master in the art of sorcery. That they were seven is 
 due to the idea that seven demons sometimes took possession of a man. 
 Such a union of spirits was thought to require a similar league of opposing forces 
 to withstand it. 
 
Chap. VII.] IN ATHENS, COBINTH, ETC. 191 
 
 that they fled naked and wounded ; and when this was known to 
 all the Jews and Gentiles dwelling in Ephesus, general fear pre- 
 vailed, and the name of the Lord Jesus was greatly magnified. 
 Many, who already believed, indeed, but who at the same time 
 practised sorcery, now burnt all the books that contained their 
 magic formulas in one enormous pile. Ovt(o kuto, KpdTo<;, says 
 the Acts of the Apostles at the conclusion of this narrative, 
 Xo'yo'i Tov Kvptov rjv^ave Kai iGyyev. This is accordingly the 
 point of view from which the whole narrative is to be considered. 
 It is to give us a striking picture of the all- conquering power with 
 which Paul worked for the spread of the faith of Jesus ; but it 
 betrays too distinctly the stamp of a later post-apostolic period. 
 Let it be granted that the circumstances which caused these results 
 really occurred as related (and this can only be granted on the 
 unhistorical supposition of the reality of these demoniacal posses- 
 sions), and even then we cannot suppose that the Apostle, who was 
 in the habit of judging the result of his work only by the inner 
 operations of the spirit, would have set any value on a propagation 
 of the faith of Christ, however widely extended, which was carried 
 on by such means as the demoniac, or rather the demon himself, 
 employed. If the believers in Ephesus gave up the sorcery which 
 stUl mingled with their Christianity, only because they deduced 
 from such experiences the lesson that it was not safe to trifle with 
 demons in the insincere manner that the exorcists had done, what 
 was their Christianity but the exchange of one form of superstition 
 for another ? And yet the verdict of the author of the Acts on the 
 occurrence is : omw KaTa Kparo'; o X0709 rov Kvpiov rjv^ave Koi 
 layyev. Such an expression of opinion is so unworthy of a 
 companion of an Apostle, and is so much in harmony with 
 the views of a later time, that it leaves us in no doubt about 
 its origin. At the same time we cannot ignore the fact that the 
 narrative, 13-20, as well as that which follows, 21-40, seem to 
 have originated only in an a priori abstraction. The intention of 
 the author, as we have already said, was to give as brilliant a 
 picture as possible of the labours of the Apostle at Ephesus, To 
 
192 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 this end the Paganism that was opposed to Christianity, and re- 
 quired to be overcome by it, had to be clearly portrayed. Now 
 Ephesus was celebrated for two things : for its magic and for its 
 worship of Artemis. The great progress of the cause of the Gospel 
 through the labours of the Apostle had therefore to be demonstrated 
 in relation to those two particulars. That Ephesus was a notorious 
 seat of magic, was clear from the universally known 'Ecf)ea-ia- 
 rypd/ifxaTo. From the nature of the case, magic involved, wherever 
 it prevailed, the worship of demons. He who renounced magic 
 had also to renounce demon-worship. Here the demons themselves 
 were made to co-operate to this end ; since as intelligent spirits 
 who could penetrate into the inner nature of things, they abhorred 
 a syncretism in which Christianity was so impurely blended, partly 
 with Judaism and partly with heathenism. From such data was 
 the narrative 13-20 constructed. 
 
 If the author meant to represent here the victory which the 
 Gospel obtained through Paul, over heathenism in the form in which 
 it then existed at Ephesus, he could not forbear to speak of the 
 celebrated temple- worship of the Ephesian Artemis. Could there 
 be any greater proof of the extent to which the Gospel was pre- 
 vailing, than that the great Artemis of the Ephesians was losing 
 her worshippers, that the renowned silver shrines could no longer 
 find purchasers, and that the whole guild of silversmiths employed 
 in making them were in danger of losing their occupation, and 
 very naturally broke out into open riot against the man who was 
 the sole cause of this great change of affairs ? The connection in 
 which the story of the tumult of Demetrius appears in the Acts at 
 once suggests that it can only be regarded as an ideal picture of 
 the success of the Apostle's labours. We have no security for the 
 truth of the individual statements ; and in several points they fad 
 to suggest to us any clear idea of what happened. We thus con- 
 clude that the historical result of the whole passage, xix. 10-40, 
 adds nothing to the Apostle's own simple statement, 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 
 about his residence at Ephesus, 6vpa jdp /xoi dve'^ye fieydXr) Koi 
 evepyT]';, Koii avTLKelfievoi ttoXXoI (cf. xv. 32). In fact we see very 
 
Chap. VII.] JJV ATHENS, CORINTH, ETC. 193 
 
 plainly on comparing v. 15, sq., and xix. 11, sq., that the author had 
 the example of Peter before his eyes ; and the picture of the 
 Apostle Paul's operations had to be made to answer to the parallel. 
 I am disposed to place the story of the youth who fell down 
 from an open window on the third floor during the Apostle's 
 evening discourse at Troas, and whom he brought to life again 
 (Acts XX. 7, sq), under the same point of view. It is certaioly 
 probable that the young man was not dead at all, and the whole 
 occurrence admits of a very simple explanation, just as it is told 
 here, without the supposition of any miracle. On the other hand, 
 the historian's expression leaves it equally open to suppose that a 
 miracle was wrought. That the Apostle hastened to the youth 
 and laid himself upon him, proves nothing against the supposition 
 of a miracle : secondary means of this kind were often employed 
 in miraculous acts, though in no way necessary to the miracle. 
 The words r] ryap yjrv')(ri avrov ev avTw eariv may indeed signify 
 "his life is still in him;" but how can it be said that Calvin's 
 remark, "non negat fuisse mortuum quia miraculi gloriam hoc 
 modo extingueret — sed sensus est, vitam illi redditam esse Dei 
 gratis," is only a strange evasion, as Meyer, among the recent 
 commentators, expresses it ? How, we cannot but ask, could the 
 author say, xx. 9, simply, ripOr) veKpo<;, if he did not really mean 
 the reader to imderstand that the youth was d^ead ? The whole 
 occurrence may have happened in a perfectly natural manner ; 
 yet the writer must have considered it to have been a miracle, and 
 must have designed to represent it as such. What led him to do 
 this, if not the idea that Paul must not be left behind the other 
 apostles in respect of miracles, and especially that he must be 
 shown to be on a level with Peter, who among his other miracles 
 had raised a dead person to Life (ix. 36-43)?-' 
 
 1 In the narrative of the miracles performed by the Apostle Peter at Lydda and 
 Joppa (Acts ix. 33, sqq.), the different miracles oit Jesus, as reported in the Gospels, 
 are summarised and transferred to Peter. Thus besides the cure of a paralytic 
 (ix. 33-35 cf. Mark ii. 1, sq.), we have a raising from the dead, 36-43. As the 
 raising of the young man at Nain, Luke vii. 12, was specially called for by the 
 fact that the youth was the only son of his mother, and that she was a widow, 
 
 VOL. L N 
 
194 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 An occurrence which in itself had been perfectly fortuitous and 
 natural could easily be utilised for this purpose. The narrative 
 xxviii. 8-10 may probably be regarded in the same way ; in which 
 the Apostle appears as a miracle-worker, but which does not 
 strictly require the hypothesis of miracle to explain it. 
 
 so a special reason is alleged here. It is very naturally drawn from the alms- 
 giving and good works on which the writer has been enlarging. A life that has 
 been spent in so many good works, — this idea is most pathetically represented by 
 the widows who stand round weeping and displaying the clothes and garments 
 which the dead woman had made for them, — such a life should not be taken from 
 the world, or should be restored to the world again. On this account the act of 
 restoring to the friends is specially dwelt on here as well as in the gospel of Lute. 
 As it is said in Luke, koI cdaxev avrov rfj lir^rpi airov, so here, ix. 41, (jiavrjcras ti 
 Tovs ayiovs Koi ras XVP"^ 'jTape(TTr)(r€v avTrjv ^uxrav. For the rest the narrative 
 closely follows that of the three Evangelists, Matthew ix. 18, sq., 23-26 ; Mark 
 V. 22, sq. ; Luke viii. 41, especially that of Mark. We may compare Mark v. 
 40, eK^aktov anavTas Ka\ Kparrjcras Trjs x^i-P"' Tov rraibtov, Xc-yei avrfj Takida, KoCfU' 
 . . . /cai evdeois dvearq t6 Kopdaiov, with Acts ix. 40, cV^aXwi/ Sc e^o) wdvras 6 
 IltTpos, eLiTf TaPida, dvda-njdi. : rj Se . . . dvfKa6i<re (compare Luke vii. 14, ciTre 
 veavKTue, (roi Xe'ym iyepBriTi- Kol dvetcdBurev 6 veavlas)' Soils 6e avTJj x«'pa dvearrjaev 
 airrjv. The supposition, however, is very obvious that the name of the woman 
 Ta/3ifla is only borrowed from the TaXida Kovpi of Mark. The name Ta^iBa, Eoe- 
 deer or Gazelle in Hebrew and Syriac, means the same as TaXida, with which it 
 is interchangeable by Paronomasia, namely maiden; and as Jlark (v. 41) adds o 
 icrn p.edippr]vev6)icvov to Kopdacov, the author of the Acts follows with fj itepfo)- 
 vevofiiVT) Xeyerai Aopxas. 
 
CHAPTEE VIII. 
 
 THE apostle's AEEEST AT JERUSALEM. — ACTS XXL, sq. 
 
 The sad and gloomy forebodings with which, according to the 
 Acts of the Apostles, the Apostle Paul set out on his journey to 
 Jerusalem, and which he expressed in his farewell speech at 
 Miletus, were too well grounded to admit of their fulfilment being 
 long delayed. Scarcely had the Apostle arrived at Jerusalem when 
 a series of events occurred, the result of which was that he found 
 himself in the hands of the Eoman magistrate at Jerusalem. After 
 ' an imprisonment of two years at Cfesarea, he was removed to Eome 
 as a Eoman prisoner to await the further decision of his fate by the 
 Emperor, to whom, as a Eoman citizen, he had appealed. Here, if 
 anywhere, in this so famous passage of the Apostle's life, we might 
 expect from the Acts a narrative which we might implicitly receive 
 as true. But we are deceived in this expectation. The false posi- 
 tion which the Acts makes the Apostle take up towards Judaism 
 could not fail to modify the narrative of the final catastrophe which 
 occurred at Jerusalem. It cannot, indeed, be doubted that that 
 ■ catastrophe was brought on by the hatred which the Jews had all 
 along cherished against the Apostle as an apostate from and enemy 
 to the national religion. This preparation for it is not wanting in 
 the Acts, throughout which the Jews appear as the Apostle's 
 bitterest enemies, who not only resist with all their might his 
 preaching of the Gospel, but also attempt in every way to wreak 
 their hatred on his person. But when we inquire for the precise 
 cause of this hatred which the Jews bore to the Apostle, the Acts 
 
196 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 provides us with no adequate explanation : the apologetic tendency 
 of that work called imperatively for the concealment of the Apostle's 
 true relation to the Jews as well as to the Jewish- Christians. This 
 is the only possible way of accounting for the fact that the Acts 
 gives a totally different picture of the occurrences at Jerusalem and 
 Antioch from that which we find in the Apostle's own Epistles. He 
 is made to accommodate himself to Judaism in a way to which he 
 could not have consented without utterly deserting his principles. 
 On this point we have already remarked how little credit is due to 
 the assertion of the Acts, that Timothy allowed himself to he cir- 
 cumcised at the Apostle's suggestion. Our verdict must be the 
 same with regard to those actions ascribed by the Acts to the 
 Apostle, which show a similar leaning to the usages and institutions 
 of Judaism. If these be not directly inconsistent with his well- 
 known principles, they at least do not increase our confidence in 
 him. Twice does the Acts draw attention to the fact that he did 
 not neglect the customary visits to Jerusalem at the times of the 
 festivals. He is represented as saying, xviii. 21, Aei fie vravTco^ t^i/ 
 eoprrjv rrjv ep-^pfievTjv iroirjaai et? ' lepoadXvfia. He began this same 
 journey, moreover, with taking a vow, of which the undoubtedly 
 Jewish practice of shaving the head was a feature.^ He did not 
 wish to be detained on his last journey, because, as we are told, 
 Acts XX. 1 6, he hasted eo Bwarov rjv avrw, TTjy ri/u,epav rrj<; iranT]- 
 KocrTr]<; yeve(r6ai ei<; ' lepocroXv/jba. The Apostle himself says very 
 simply, Eomans xv. 25, in speaking of this journey, that he is 
 going to Jerusalem, ZlukovSiv to'1<; dyloK, in order to convey thither 
 the contributions collected in Macedonia and Achaia. In any case 
 this must have been the chief object of the journey, as we see from 
 2 Cor. viii. and ix., where these contributions are spoken of as a 
 thing to which the Apostle attached great importance. The Acts 
 says nothing of this, but on the other hand it dwells largely on the 
 festival journey, on which the Apostle is entirely silent ; and this 
 
 ^ Moat commeiitators take the Keipafievos, Acts xviii. 18, as relating to the 
 Apostle. Perhaps this is meant to prepare us for his readiness to undertake the 
 Nazarite offering, xxi. 24. 
 
Chap. VIII.] BIS ARREST AT JERUSALEM. 197 
 
 is evidently done with a view to making the Apostle appear as a 
 faithful adherent of the Jewish national worship. But if the 
 Apostle always showed such an adherence to the ancient religion of 
 his fathers — an adherence which was not invalidated by his denial 
 of the necessity of circumcision, — how are we to explain the great 
 collision into which he came with his brethren in the faith, and the 
 irreconcilable hate with which they followed him ? His faith in 
 Jesus as the Messiah cannot have been the cause of this hatred, or 
 it would have been directed equally against the Jewish-Christians 
 who lived among the Jews in Jerusalem. It can only be explained 
 by his teaching on the subject of the law, and nothing is more 
 natural than that the Jews should consider him a deadly enemy to 
 their religion, if, on the one hand, he was desirous of making the 
 Gentiles Jews, by allowing them to partake of the Messianic salva- 
 tion, which was ordained for the Jews alone, and on the other 
 hand of relieving them from the necessity of circumcision, which 
 the Jews regarded as the only portal through which they could 
 enter to participate in the blessings of Judaism. As soon as cir- 
 cumcision ceased to be the specific mark of Judaism, the essential 
 difference between Jew and Gentile, and with it the absolute im- 
 portance of Judaism, disappeared. Thus a teaching which insisted 
 more than anything on the assertion that circumcision was no 
 longer necessary, was obviously the most direct contradiction of the 
 very principle of Judaism. But however clearly this may explain 
 the enmity of the Jews to the Apostle, yet it remains as inexpli- 
 cable as ever, how, if we believe the Acts, the hatred of the Jews 
 was directed exclusively against Paul, and not against the older 
 Apostles, who on the subject of circumcision were entirely agreed 
 with him. But if, as the Epistle to the Galatians leads us to assume, 
 the elder Apostles were not agreed with him on this point, but, on 
 the contrary, were at one with the Jewish-Christian party generally 
 in upholding the necessity of circumcision, then we naturally con- 
 clude that the attack made on the Apostle on account of his doctrine 
 of freedom from the law did not proceed only from the Jews, but 
 that the Jewish-Christians took part in it as well. And what can 
 
198 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 we expect from a narrative which misrepresents the position of 
 affairs in such essential particulars as this ? Must it not misrepre- 
 sent the events which followed, and if it cannot pass over the real 
 facts of the case in complete silence, must it not fall into conti'a- 
 diction with itself? We have to keep this in mind in considering: 
 the narrative of the Apostle's arrest at Jerusalem with the events 
 which led to it and accompanied it. We meet here with difBculties 
 and contradictions which are nothing but the natural collision which 
 must ensue, when a historian who has from the first taken up such 
 a false attitude towards the facts of history, finds afterwards that 
 he must treat in some way or other the events in which the sequel 
 of the history is developed. 
 
 This view suggests itself irresistibly in regard to the first point 
 with which the Acts of the Apostles begins the narrative of these 
 last occurrences in Jerusalem. The Apostle went, on his arrival iu 
 Jerusalem, to James, the head of the Church at Jerusalem. In an 
 assembly of the collected Elders, he gave a detailed account of the 
 results of his apostolic labours among the Gentiles up to that time.' 
 All that he had to say on this subject was received with the most 
 sympathetic recognition, but at the same time he was told that it 
 was publicly known in Jerusalem that his teaching had been op- 
 posed to circumcision. In order, therefore, to aUay the hostility 
 which his appearance in Jerusalem would excite, he was advised to 
 join himself to four men, doubtless members of the Christian Church 
 in Jerusalem, who had just undertaken a Nazarite vow, and to 
 defray their charges in carrying out their vow, as was often done. 
 Thus every one would see that there was nothing in the accusation 
 which had been brought against him, but that he was an exact 
 observer of the law. This advice the Apostle followed. Now it is 
 not inconceivable that he should have gone into a course of action 
 which, without any sacrifice of principle on his part, might have 
 the effect of dispelling a prejudice which many had conceived 
 against him, and of lessening the hostility of his enemies. But 
 we must consider well the design which this act was intended to 
 serve. The Apostle was accused of having preached to the Jews 
 
Chap. VIII.] HIS ARREST AT JERUSALEM. 199 
 
 in foreign countries that they should forsake Moses, asserting that 
 they should not circumcise their children, nor observe the law (xxi. 
 21). This accusation was not in itself untrue ; it is a matter of 
 fact that the Apostle preached among Jews and Gentiles a doctrine 
 which could not but lead to the discontinuance of circumcision. 
 He made the custom appear to be totally useless for the purpose 
 for which it had hitherto been held necessary. Now we read that 
 the Apostle was recommended to perform an action which was 
 intended to impress his opponents with the idea that he stiU 
 adhered strictly to the law (o-rotj^ei? Kat, avro<i tov vojjlov ^vKaacrav, 
 i.e. as well as others), and that what was said of him was false {Ssv 
 KaTri')(r}VTai, irepi crov ovBep eari) ; false, then, that he was an opponent 
 of circumcision. But how could James, the brother of the Lord, 
 recommend such an act to be done from such a motive, and how 
 could Paul demean himself to do it ? What should we think of 
 the character of these men, if we supposed them capable of such a 
 mode of action ? The author of the Acts felt this himself, hence he 
 takes care to limit the hihdcrKeiv airoa-racnav a-jro Mcovaeoy; to the 
 Jews who lived among the Gentiles (21 cf. 25), and the accusation 
 is put in such a form as to imply the most direct hostility to cir- 
 cumcision and the Mosaic Law (Xeytov fir] Trepireiiveiv avTov; ra 
 reKva, firjBe To2<i ede<n Trepnrarelv, 21). Ver. 25 also bears reference 
 to this. The meaning of this verse is, that the freedom of the Gen- 
 tile-Ghristians is not to be curtailed ; it is still to be the case that 
 nothing further is exacted from them than the j)vkaaaecr6ai, , , . 
 TO re elScoXodvTov, etc. : thus circumcision is not exacted from them. 
 But how could the Apostle uphold the necessity of circumcision for 
 the Jews if he denied it for the Gentiles ? The reference to the 
 transactions of Acts xv., an event which caimot have taken place 
 as is here implied, simply shows that the author wished to repre- 
 sent matters in such a way as if in all his preaching on the subject 
 of the law the Apostle had never said anything affecting Judaism 
 in the very least. The commentators on the Acts hold it therefore to 
 be inconceivable that the Apostle Paul ever directly attacked the ob- 
 servance of the law ; what he attacked as imchristian, they say, was 
 
200 LIFE AJSD WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 merely the making salvation depend on the observance of the law.^ 
 But even in this he was most distinctly controverting the Jewish- 
 Christian view of the necessity of observing the law, and could by 
 no means escape the charge that his whole doctrine aimed at the 
 subversion of the law. On the other side of the question the com- 
 mentators find no difficulty in believing that by his example, and 
 by the spirit of his whole life and work, the Apostle led many 
 Jewish- Christians to give up the observance of the Mosaic law 
 altogether, and that with a good conscience. How weak, then, and 
 how unworthy of an Apostle is the evasion to which it is necessary 
 to resort in order to justify the assertion cui/ Karri'^rjVTac trepi trot) 
 ovhev eartv, aWa <TTOi-)(el<; Kac avTO<; tov vofiov (f>v\aaa(ov. It was 
 certainly very far from the Apostle's intention to pretend to such 
 an observance of the law. In his own Epistles he states in the 
 frankest manner that he is an opponent of circumcision, and con- 
 siders adherence to it to be quite inconsistent with the principles 
 of his teaching. Here again we find the Epistle to the Galatians 
 maintaining a consistent and irreconcilable contradiction to the 
 Acts of the Apostles. " Behold, I Paul say unto you," the Apostle 
 unreservedly declares. Gal. v. 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, "that if ye be cir- 
 cumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify agaiu to 
 every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole 
 law." " Eor in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything 
 nor uncircumcision ; but faith which worketh by love." " And I, 
 brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecu- 
 tion? then is the offence of the cross ceased." "Ye have been 
 
 1 Thus Olshausen on Acta xxi. 17-26 ; cf. also Neander, p. 425, Bohn, 302. 
 " Paul combated the outward observance of Judaism only so far as the justification 
 and sanctificatiou of men were made to depend on it." What Neauder says 
 against me in this passage does not in the least alter the case. The Apostle 
 does express the opinion (1 Cor. vii. 18-20) that Jews should remain Jews after 
 their conversion, that Christianity does not require any one to change in these 
 outward things ; — these are merely outward things, and being such, may remain 
 as they are. But this is evidently quite a new way of looking on these things, 
 and it must have been perfectly evident that if circumcision was no longer 
 necessary to salvation, its mere outward retention could be of no value, and must 
 come to an end sooner or later, even for the Jews themselves. 
 
Chap. VIII.] HIS ABBEST AT JEBUSALEM. 201 
 
 called unto liberty." Let it not be said that the Apostle speaks ia 
 this manner only to the Gentile-Christians of Galatia. When he 
 declares in the same Epistle, " Ye are the children of God by faith 
 in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptised into 
 Christ have put on Christ ; there is neither Jew nor Greek," he 
 expressly asserts the principle that no difference can be acknow- 
 ledged between Jew and Gentile. With what appearance of truth 
 could he then come before the Jews with the statement, " In all 
 that you have heard of me there is not a particle of truth. I 
 am an adherent and an observer of the law as well as you !" 
 Would this have been a less contemptible inroKpiat.'; than that 
 which the Apostle himself so unreservedly condemned in Peter ? 
 It is impossible that the Apostle should have resolved on such a 
 .course of action on the grounds given by the author of the Acts ; 
 and if the motive disappears from which a certain course of action 
 is said to have proceeded, how doubtful does the action itself 
 become ! And what reasonable ground could be imagined for such 
 a course of action as the Apostle was recommended to adopt ? The 
 result showed at once, and unmistakably, how vain and useless the 
 advice and its adoption were. We conclude then that it is simply 
 the author of the Acts who wishes to represent the Apostle as a 
 faithful adherent to, and observer of the Mosaic law ; here, as well as 
 everywhere (especially in xxviii. 1 7), he slurs over, or rather entirely 
 ignores, the real difference between him and the Jewish-Christian 
 party ; he desires, in one word, to represent the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles at any cost as an Apostle of the Jews, which he certainly 
 neither was, nor, according to his own express declaration, ever 
 wished to be considered. 
 
 The advice thus given to the Apostle is founded on the alleged 
 fact that there were so many tens of thousands of believing Jews in 
 Jerusalem who were all strict zealots for the law (xxi. 20). But 
 here also we meet with an insoluble difficulty. We must ask, how 
 the Church of Jerusalem, which according to all accounts was not 
 a considerable body, comes now to reckon as her members all those 
 thousands of believing Jews ? The Jewish iahabitants of Jerusalem, 
 
202 
 
 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 in general might be correctly described as " many tens of thousands,'' 
 and it seems very natural to suppose that the words rwv irevicrrev- 
 KOTcov after 'lovBalcov are spurious. I have expressed this view 
 before, and the objection has been raised to it that the state- 
 ment thus made to Paul that there were in Jerusalem many 
 thousands of Jews who were aU zealous observers of the law, 
 would have been self-evident and meaningless. I remark, how- 
 ever, that the statement was not made to Paul by way of giving 
 him information, but merely as appealing to a fact with which 
 he was well acquainted, in favour of the cautious poUcy which 
 he ought to pursue. But this correction of one mistake can 
 do but little to restore credit to a narrative in which the grounds 
 of critical objection lie so deep. If, comforted by Neander's re- 
 mark, that this number need not be taken as an exact estimate,' 
 we pass over the many "tens of thousands," there still remain 
 the " believing Jews " of whom the Apostle was warned, Jewish- 
 Christians, that is to say, of the very same church in which we 
 have just seen that the brethren gave the Apostle so friendly a 
 reception. These same brethren are now described to him as zealots 
 for the law, from whom he had to fear the worst on account of the 
 accusation which had been brought against him of preaching 
 apostasy from the Mosaic law. How can we possibly harmonise 
 these two statements? We might suppose that the members of 
 the Church at Jerusalem were not all equally prejudiced and hostile 
 to the Apostle, yet how trifling a proportion must the few brethren 
 who were the exception have been to the general mass of the 
 Jewish-Christians, who regarded the Apostle simply as the worst 
 enemy of the law.^ For we cannot help seeing that the description 
 
 1 A writer who at first makes thousands upon thousands be converted by 
 every sermon of the Apostles, need not surely make much difficulty about tens 
 of thousands at this stage ! 
 
 2 Kuinoel appreciates this difficulty, and remarks quite frankly on dScXc^oi 
 (17), " Apostoli et presbyteri, nam coetus non favebat Paulo.'' He is taken to 
 task, however, by Meyer, who thiuks his remark strange, " as if ver. 20 spoke of a 
 bigoted hostility to which there were no exceptions, and which went so far as not 
 even to allow of a friendly reception." But ia not this undeniably the meaning 
 of what follows ? The prejudice against the Apostle was so great that he was 
 
Chap. VIII.] SIS ABBEST AT JERUSALEM. 203 
 
 of the temper of these zealots for the law is meant to depict to us 
 that same hatred of the Apostle which soon afterwards broke out 
 in so threatening a manner in spite of the advice which, though 
 well-meant, could yet, from the nature of the case, scarcely avert 
 the danger.^ And why should we hesitate to believe in such a 
 disposition against the Apostle among the Jewish-Christian in- 
 habitants of Jerusalem, as well as among the Jewish inhabitants ; 
 are not those who came from James described to us as his declared 
 foes and opponents ? Does not this statement about the great 
 apprehension for the Apostle, awakened at that time by the zeal 
 for the law cherished by those inhabitants of Jerusalem, agree 
 completely with what we know of the feeling which was afterwards 
 entertained against the Apostle Paul by the Ebionites, who were 
 so nearly allied to the Jewish-Christians of Jerusalem ? We can 
 only wonder how a writer who has hitherto taken the greatest 
 pains to conceal, as much as possible, the true relation in which 
 the Apostle stood to the Jewish-Christians, should have here come 
 forward for once with the bare naked truth, and this too in a 
 connection in which the matter in hand had so great a practical 
 importance, and by its results must have tended to bring the 
 
 not recognised as a brotlier in the faith, but regarded only as an apostate. Thus 
 it requires to be explained how in the Church of Jerusalem, a, Church which was 
 under the immediate guidance of the Apostles, such a difference had arisen 
 between these d8e\(j>ol nenicrTfVKOTfs and the dSeX^oi. Neander is completely 
 silent on this point. Though, as ZeUer remarks (Apostel. Gesch. p. 281), the 
 words of ver. 21 need not involve more than a suspicion, the case is not much 
 altered. Suspicion would be enough to fan a considerable blaze of fanaticism in 
 zealots such as these. 
 
 "■ The writer himself suggests the connection between this temper of the Jewish- 
 Christians and the scenes which took place afterwards. See ver. 22. Though the 
 words iravTcos 8ei 7!\rjdos crvveXdelv should be understood not of a tumult but 
 merely of a concourse of the curious, how would that help us ? A multitude 
 which has flocked together from curiosity because an apostate and preacher of 
 apostasy, of whom much has been heard, has ventured to appear in the streets of 
 Jerusalem, cannot be credited with the kindest intentions. In such a case the 
 merest accident might serve as an occasion for the smouldering hatred to burst 
 out into open violence. This (rvvikSclu, then, is not different from the trvuBpo/ifi 
 Tov XaoO of ver. 30. It is also evident that ovtos i<mv . . . navras Travraxov 
 StbdaKav in ver. 28 refers to ver. 21, ajroorao-iai' diSaa-Keis. 
 
204 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I, 
 
 Jewisli-Christians into disrepute. But the clear literal meaning of 
 his words can leave us in no doubt on the matter, and even if, as 
 the iroa-ai fj,vpidBe<; seems to indicate, the Jewish-Christians of 
 Jerusalem had become confused in his mind with the general body 
 of the Jewish inhabitants of the city (for there cannot have been 
 a very great difference between the Jews and the Jewish-Christians 
 of Jerusalem)/ what he has once said cannot be unsaid, and his 
 testimony is of all the more value, as it must be looked on as 
 wrung from him against his wHl by the might of historical truth. 
 The result then is that, according to the statement of the author 
 of the Acts of the Apostles himself, the Jewish-Christians in 
 Jerusalem saw in the Apostle Paul an apostate from the law, and 
 a preacher of this apostasy among both Jews and Gentiles. If 
 they held this opinion of him, no one can be blamed for thinking 
 that they cannot have been so indifferent and uninterested as is 
 generally supposed, in events which, like the scenes that immedi- 
 ately ensued, were undeniably the natural outcome of views and 
 opinions such as theirs. 
 
 What actually happened after this point was doubtless that the 
 Apostle's appearance in Jerusalem led to tumults in which he was 
 saved from the passion of the Jews by the military force of the 
 Eomans, but thus became a prisoner in their hands. The Acts teUs 
 us this ; and it tells us in reality nothing more that we can im- 
 plicitly believe. What it says of the occurrences which led to this 
 result is all coloured through and through with the apologetic 
 tendency which dominates the work. It is in pursuance of this 
 tendency that the Apostle is made to take the advice that had 
 been offered him. He absolved himself thereby from the charge 
 that had been brought against him ; the groundlessness and un- 
 reasonableness of the hatred which burst out against him as an 
 apostate became perfectly clear. This idea is the thread which 
 
 ' 'lovbaioi. oi ireincrTeviioTfS are therefore faithful adherents of the law in general 
 — orthodox Jews, whether they are believing or unbelieving Jews in reference to 
 Christianity. The expression is evidently used by the author in this sense as 
 concerning Judaism merely. 
 
Chap. VIII.] his ABBEST AT JEBUSALEM. 205 
 
 runs through the series of public trials which followed the Apostle's 
 imprisonment. We have here an artistically constructed plot, 
 which, however, is by no means calculated to give us a clear or 
 natural idea of what actually happened. If we turn to the chief 
 scene of the narrative, which is certainly developed with some 
 amount of dramatic interest, namely, the trial of the Apostle before 
 the Sanhedrim, xxiii. 1-10, how unlikely and unintelligible, how 
 unworthy of the Apostle even, does everything' appear ! Most of 
 all are we struck with the artifice which the Apostle is represented 
 as employing in order to involve the two parties composing the 
 Sanhedrim, namely, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, in a quarrel 
 with each other, so as not only to avert the attention and passion 
 of the Sanhedrim from himself, but to gain for himself the good-will 
 of one of the parties. After the violent outburst of passion from 
 both sides which had interrupted the Apostle's discourse at its 
 very outset, he commenced with the bold declaration, in which he 
 had in view the difference which divided the two parties of the 
 Sadducees and Pharisees, " I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee ; 
 of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." 
 This one word is represented as having had the immediate result 
 not only of setting the Sadducees and Pharisees at violent strife 
 with each other, but of bringing over the Pharisees to the Apostle's 
 side, and making them declare openly that they found no fault in 
 him. Here the first question that arises is whether the Apostle's 
 statement of the difference between himself and his opponents was 
 strictly true. He might agree with the Pharisees in believing in a 
 resurrection, but he could scarcely say with truth that the reason 
 why he stood before that court was that he had preached Jesus as 
 the one through whom the people of Israel's hope of a resurrection 
 was to be fulfilled. For if we take the sense of the Apostle's 
 words, irepi eXwiBo^ koI avaaTaaeciyi; veKpav eyco Kpi,vo/iai, as 
 Neander takes it (Bohn, 307), it at once becomes clear that the 
 question raised between him and his opponents was not that of 
 the resurrection of the dead generally, but the question whether 
 or not Jesus had risen from the dead. But this fact could be 
 
200 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 denied without prejudice to the general doctrine of a resurrection. 
 And although the Apostle agreed with the Pharisees on this point, 
 he at once differed from them with regard to a fact, without the 
 recognition of which the belief in a resurrection could have no 
 value or meaning for him. Here then it was simply useless for 
 him to insist on this point of agreement, which included the hare 
 possibility of the resurrection of Jesus, and at once suggested the 
 great chasm there was between the possible and the actuaL Thus 
 it was only very superficially true that he stood for judgment as a 
 Pharisee, on account of a belief which he held in common with 
 the Pharisees. But the Apostle asserted expressly that he was 
 being judged as a Pharisee. Even in this assertion we have a 
 shifty and ambiguous way of evading the question at issue. And 
 the same applies to the statement that the whole difference between 
 the Apostle and his opponents could be reduced to the doctrine of 
 the resurrection. The Apostle must have known perfectly well 
 that the doctrine of the resurrection was not in dispute here at all ; 
 in regard to it he was in exactly the same case as the Jewish- 
 Christians of Jerusalem who believed in the resurrection of Jesus 
 and were not molested on that account. 
 
 The real cause of offence was that which distinguished him 
 from the Jewish-Christians, namely, his doctrine about the law. 
 Here then we find a second evasion of the real question at issue 
 which does not agree with the Apostle's frank love of truth ; and 
 the remark of Grotius on ver. 6, " non deerat Paulo humana etiam 
 prudentia, qua in bonum evangelii utens columbse serpentem 
 utiliter miscebat et inimicorum dissidiis fruebatur," is a very 
 accurate description of the case, but on that account by no means 
 a vindication of the Apostle. But setting aside these moral diffi- 
 culties, we can scarcely imagine that a single expression casually 
 let fall by the Apostle regarding the resurrection could at once have 
 kindled so fierce a fire. Parties which differed from each other on 
 such essential points, and yet came in contact with each other so 
 constantly in ordinary life, must long have come to an under- 
 standing about the points on which they differed. In the San- 
 
Chap. VIII.] HIS ARREST AT JERUSALEM. 207 
 
 hedrim they were imited as members of one and the same tribunal, 
 and we cannot believe that their doctrinal differences could on any 
 occasion break out in passionate conflict; least of all in a case 
 like this where the defence of the accused was so palpable a 
 stratagem. Here, however, we have both parties disputing with a 
 fury and a passion which blinded them to their own interests as 
 much as if they had been quarrelling about these opposing doctrines 
 for the first time. The intention of the author of the Acts of the 
 Apostles in this narrative appears all the more clearly from the 
 absence in it of any historical probability. The Acts makes the 
 Apostle Paul stand throughout in as close a relation as possible to 
 , Judaism ; his real, essential opposition to it is concealed and 
 ignored, and in place of it that side of the Apostle's teaching and 
 conduct is presented to us on which he has some small agreement 
 with J^idaism. In doing this the author evidently wishes on the 
 one hand to remove the prejudices which the Jewish-Christians 
 may have felt against the Apostle as an opponent of the law, and 
 on the other to show how groundless the hatred of the Jews against 
 the Apostle had really been. As the Apostle stands here before 
 the Sanhedrim, which was composed of Pharisees and Sadducees 
 alike, and held the belief in a resurrection in common with the 
 Pharisees, the author had an opportunity of making it appear that 
 the Pharisees had not been so much the enemies of the Apostle as 
 the Sadducees. The Apostle was thus the victim of the partisan 
 hatred of a mere sect. The author allows us to see the train of 
 thought which led him to give this version of the story, when he 
 remarks, xxiii. 8, on the doctrinal differences between the Pharisees 
 and the Sadducees. The reader is already well acquainted with 
 these parties and even with their distinctive tenets (ver. 34), and 
 what leads the writer to enlarge on this subject once more ? If he 
 were only relating a matter of fact in a simple and careful way, it 
 would never have occurred to him to make special mention of a 
 fact which is taken for granted aU through the Gospels as a thing 
 that everybody knew. The position in which he was to place the 
 Apostle in regard to the Pharisees and Sadducees must have led 
 
208 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 him to dwell in this way on their doctrinal difference. He seems 
 to have constructed his account of the Apostle's behaviour before 
 the Sanhedrim out of his knowledge of this difference between the 
 two parties. So far is he misled by the efforts which he makes to 
 represent the cause of the Apostle as a party affair of the Pharisees, 
 that he almost makes the Pharisees into Christians. It is not 
 enough that he finds a point of contact in the doctrine of the 
 resurrection : the other peculiarity of the Pharisees, their belief in 
 angels and spirits, is also pressed into the same service. Whilst 
 the Pharisees, acknowledging the Apostle's cause as their own, 
 declare openly that they can find no fault with this man, they go 
 so far as to add (ver. 9), el Se -irvevfjia e\.aXr]a-ev avra r; ayyeXo^, etc. 
 This refers to what the Apostle had said in his speech to the people, 
 xxii. 6-18, of the appearance of the risen Jesus, and the Pharisees 
 seem prepared actually to concede to the Apostle the reality of 
 these appearances ; but in the very moment in which they seem to 
 be about to acknowledge this openly, the author makes them 
 suddenly suppress their declaration, as though they shrank back 
 from so great a concession. We may say with Neander (p. 432, 
 Bohn, 307) that "the concluding words of the interrupted speech, 
 /j,fi deofiay&iJLev, are certainly a gloss, and a gloss disturbing the 
 sense, because this was assuredly more than the Pharisees from 
 their standpoint could ever have thought of saying." But the 
 speech of the Pharisees requires to be completed in some way, 
 and it matters little what words we supply ; it is clear that 
 even what goes before expresses far more than the Pharisees from 
 their standpoint could ever have thought of saying. Those who 
 were prepared to grant so much could have no objection of any 
 weight to urge against the Christian faith. And how can we 
 think that the Pharisees, seated in the Sanhedrim to judge the 
 Apostle, could appear as champions of his cause, and that, blinded 
 by a mere appearance of similarity between his faith and theirs, 
 they could deem those features of his teaching which were offensive 
 to them as Pharisees, and the great charge brought against him of 
 profaning the temple, and undermining the authority of the law, to 
 
Chap. VIII.] Eis ARREST AT JERUSALEM. 209 
 
 be unimportant matters which called for no further discussion ? All 
 this is in the highest degree improbable, and shows clearly that this 
 whole trial before the Sanhedrim is, in the form in which we have 
 it, a scene arranged by the author of the Acts, in which he does not 
 even take pains to sustain the dignity of the Apostle's character. 
 We need not scruple to say that the quarrel between the Apostle 
 and the High Priest, which forms the prelude to this disorderly 
 assize, is so unworthy of the Apostle that thanks are due to any 
 criticism which, on sufficient reasons, would free him from this 
 blot upon his character. The author of the Acts of the Apostles 
 has here in his mind — a thing that tells against rather than in favour 
 of the historical character of his narrative — the trial of Jesus before 
 the Sanhedrim ; but how unlike does the Apostle appear to the 
 image of him who "lived in him." " Ubi est ilia patientia Salva- ; 
 toris qui quasi agnus ductus ad victimam non aperuit os suum, sed 
 clementer loquitur verberanti ; ' Si male locutus, argue de malo, si 
 autem bene, quid me csedis ? ' " This is Jerome's sentence on this 
 passage (contra Pelag. iii. init.), and the impression left by these 
 words is not effaced when he adds, "Non Apostolo detrahimus, 
 sed gloriam Domini prsedicamus, qui in came passus carnis injuriam 
 superat et fragilitatem." Even Olshausen does not hesitate to say 
 that it appears unworthy of the Apostle to have spoken so abusively ; 
 that by such behaviour he transgressed the decorum due to the 
 supreme court of justice, and, confounding the office with the person, 
 gave passionate vent to his feelings with regard to the man, where 
 only the office was concerned.^ Neander indeed is of opinion that 
 these passionate words contained the truth, and that the Apostle, 
 when it was pointed out to him that it was the High Priest whom 
 he had thus vilified, at once retracted his words, saying that he had 
 
 ^ It is really incomprehensible how Olshausen from his standpoint could have 
 committed himself to such an opinion on the behaviour of the Apostle. If the 
 letter is worth so much, and leaves no room to doubt that the Apostle really be- 
 haved as is represented, and if it be also certain that the Apostles must, as direct 
 organs of the Holy Spirit, be considered infallible authorities on every subject, 
 then we ought not to judge the behaviour of the Apostle according to our human 
 standard of morality, but rather to arrange our standard of morality according to 
 the behaviour of the Apostle. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
210 LIFJE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Paet I. 
 
 not reflected that it was the High Priest to whom he was speaking, 
 and to whom, of course, according to law, reverence was due. But 
 this can scarcely stand, for the simple reason that the words om 
 yBeiv cannot mean "non reputabam." They can only mean " I did not 
 know." Now the Apostle could not say in earnest that he did not 
 know him : he can only have said, " I did not know that he was the 
 High Priest," in an ironical sense. If the words are to be taken in 
 this sense, they show how little he thought of retracting. The same 
 is shown by the stratagem to which he immediately afterwards 
 resorted in order to embarrass the Sadducees, his real enemies, 
 who had the High Priest Ananias at their head, by ranging himself 
 on the side of the Pharisees, and making common cause with the 
 latter against them. The same tone and character run through the 
 whole of the Apostle's behaviour at this trial. I cannot agree with 
 the opinion which Neander expresses on this passage (p. 421, Bohn, 
 306), "The manner in which the Apostle conducted himself here 
 shows him to have been a man who knew how to control the 
 ebullitions of feeling with Christian self-control, and to avail 
 himself of circumstances with Christian prudence without any 
 compromise of truth." I can see here neither any " Christian re- 
 pression of passion " nor any Christian " turning circumstances to 
 account without prejudice to truth ;" and I consider it unjust that 
 the picture of the Apostle's character which we gain from his 
 Epistles should be distorted by the misrepresentations of an author 
 who lived long after the Apostolic period, and wrote in the interests 
 of a party. 
 
 If we have formed a true estimate of the passages, xxi. 17-26 
 and xxiii. 1-10, we are led to the conclusion that we are not entitled 
 to regard the narrative of which they form a part as a piece of 
 actual history : even though historical criticism should not be able 
 to demonstrate in every particular the truth of the suspicion at 
 which it has thus arrived. After our examination of the passage 
 xxiii. 1, sq., it must appear doubtful whether the Apostle's case 
 was ever heard before the Sanhedrim at all. If this is doubtful, 
 what security have we that the two speeches said to be delivered 
 
Chap. VIII.] ms ARREST AT JERUSALEM. 211 
 
 by the Apostle— one, in chap, xxii., before the Jewish people, the 
 other, chap, xxvi., before King Agrippa — were really delivered as 
 the author tells us ? The iirst at any rate must have been delivered 
 under circumstances which were scarcely suitable for such a dis- 
 course. Is it likely that the Roman tribune, who had arrested the 
 Apostle in the midst of a wild tumult, should have given permission 
 to a prisoner whom he held to be an incendiary of the most 
 dangerous kind, and about whom he knew nothing except what he 
 heard from his own mouth — that he was a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, 
 to deliver a public address when he was in the act of being removed 
 to the castle ; it being impossible to foresee what effect the speech 
 would have on the people, who were already excited to such an 
 alarming degree ? Is it likely that in the excited state they were 
 in, the people would have listened so long with patience to a man 
 whom they hated, and of whom they were already convinced that 
 he was worthy of death ? At any rate we must again draw atten- 
 tion to the curious circumstance which marks this speech as well 
 as the speech of Stephen, and that delivered by the Apostle in the 
 Areopagus. It is arranged in such a way that when the speaker 
 arrives at a certain point he is interrupted. The point in this case 
 is where he begins to speak of his mission to the Gentiles, and this 
 reminds the people of their special reason for hating him. This 
 point, however, is not reached until he has worked out his main 
 thesis as far as he could mean to do so under such circumstances. 
 Both speeches, chaps, xxii. and xxvi., have a thoroughly apologetic 
 tendency. The chief idea which the Apostle dwells on is this : the 
 vocation to which he had hitherto devoted himself among the Gen- 
 tiles was by no means arbitrarily chosen, or the accidental result of 
 a resolution arrived at in his own mind without being influenced 
 from without ; he had merely followed a call that had been addressed 
 to him from above, he had been forced to take the step by an objec- 
 tive external agency, which operated on him so powerfully that he 
 could not resist it. Of course, such an apology seems not inappro- 
 priate to the aim which the Apostle is supposed to have had in view 
 in delivering the two speeches, but it also suits in a remarkable 
 
212 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 manner the apologetic tendency which the author of the Acts of the 
 Apostles generally sets himself to further. The question therefore 
 arises from it whether, when at other times he found it necessary to 
 vindicate his position, the Apostle was in the habit of referring to the 
 fact on which this apology is based. But this is not the case : in none 
 of the Apostle's Epistles, in which he certainly had occasion to defend 
 his position against opponents of various kinds, is there any distinct 
 reference in such a spirit and for such a purpose to the outward 
 matter of fact which he is here reported to have made the chief 
 subject of important discourses on two separate occasions. But 
 such an apology is, strictly considered, not at all suited to the situa- 
 tion in which the Apostle found himself, at least in chap. xxii. "We 
 miist not here forget that the true cause of the hatred of the Jews 
 against the Apostle was not so much his faith in Christ as his 
 attack upon the law. As long as he did not vindicate himself on 
 this last subject, any apologetic attempt must have been in vain ; 
 but the whole of the speech contains no reference to this, and we 
 cannot suppose the reason to have been that he was interrupted, or 
 that he would have spoken on the subject if the speech had been 
 continued. In the second speech also, in which the Apostle was 
 at full liberty to express himself fully and in detail, nothing is said 
 on this point. 
 
 In fact the Acts of the Apostles purposely avoids it as if Paul 
 did not differ in this respect from the other Apostles. In the then 
 position of the Apostle such an apology could not have been of much 
 use ; but things would appear differently to a writer who had to 
 vindicate the Apostle not merely in respect of his attitude towards 
 the Mosaic law, but generally in respect of his Apostolic authority. 
 What stronger evidence could be brought forward for such a 
 purpose, than the repeated and circumstantial narrative of the 
 extraordinary event by which, against his own intentions, and 
 even against his will, he had been placed in the career in which 
 he had been working as an Apostle ? 
 
 If these two speeches, especially the first, can scarcely be thought 
 to have been actually delivered, then we can scarcely help thinking. 
 
Chap. VIII.] SIS ARREST AT JERUSALEM. 213 
 
 with regard to this part of the Acts which deals with the Apostle's 
 arrest, that the course of affairs was in reality much simpler than 
 we have it here. The simple original fact has been made up into 
 quite a number of public trials, each of which, however, is merely 
 a repetition of one and the same scene. The same idea, also, is 
 present in them all, namely, to have the Apostle's innocence pro- 
 claimed, now by himself, and now by others whose verdict might 
 appear to be entitled to respect. This is the intention of the 
 Apostle's speech before the people : it was not indeed possible for 
 him to convince them of his innocence, yet it was something to 
 set up the objective point of view from which his case must, in 
 justice, be decided. The proceedings before the Sanhedrim were 
 instituted by the Eoman tribune, to whom the true cause of the 
 tumultuous popular riot against the Apostle was still unknown, in 
 order yvatvai, to acr^aXe?, to to KaTij^opelrai Trapa twv 'lovSalav 
 (xxii. 30). As the Apostle succeeded in drawing the party of the 
 Pharisees over to his interest, and received from them the declara- 
 tion, ovBev KUKov evptaicofiev ev tw avOponrtp tovtoi (xxiii. 9), how 
 striking a public recognition of his innocence and of the justness 
 of his cause was thus achieved ! The mild, indulgent treatment of 
 the Apostle by the Eoman tribune was, as the Acts regards it, the 
 result of the favourable issue of the trial before the Sanhedrim. 
 The new trial which was instituted by the Eoman Procurator Felix, 
 in the form of a Eoman process, gave the Apostle a fresh oppor- 
 tunity not only of proving the injustice of the accusation brought 
 against him, but also of exhibiting his orthodoxy as a Jew, in such 
 a way as to make the point on which he differs from his opponents 
 appear to be a very trifling affair indeed. But here also we cannot 
 see how the Apostle could say with a clear conscience, o/xoXo7cd Se 
 TovTO (TOL, OTi KUTa Trjv oBov rjv Xejovaip aopeaiv, ovtco Xarpevco 
 Tw •KaTpaxp &eQ), irLcrrevav iraci toi<; Kara top vofiov Kai tok ev 
 Tot? '!rpo(j)riTat<; yeypafifievon (inter alia, then the commandment. 
 Genesis xvii. 14), ekirlBa e^av eU tov Qeov, riv koI avroi, ovtoi 
 irpocrhi'^ovTai, avdaTacriv fMeKXeiv eaeaOai veKpav, BiKaicov re km 
 dSiKtov ^ avTol ovTOt eliraTCoaav, t/ evpov ev efioi, aSiKrjpM, OTai'To? 
 
214 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Paet I. 
 
 ^ m If ft ' ^ 
 
 fiov e-rri tov avveBpiov' 77 Trepi /t/ta? TavTrj<; <^a)vr)<;, ij? eKpa^a e(rTro(; 
 ev avToh, on Trepl dvaardaecot; veKpwv eyw Kptvofiai, a-rjfiepov v(p 
 i/xwv (xxiv. 14, sqq.) The case of the Apostle is here again placed 
 in a very equivocal light, but he is so far successful that the Pro- 
 curator Felix not only does not decide against him, but treats him 
 with attention and forbearance. Under the successor of Felix, the 
 new Procurator Porcius Festus, a new and somewhat splendid trial 
 took place, at which the Jewish King Agrippa and his sister Ber- 
 nice were present. The Procurator was convinced of the Apostles 
 innocence as his predecessor had been, yet his compliant attitude 
 towards the Jews made it necessary for the Apostle to appeal to 
 the Emperor. This trial is said to have been held as a compliment 
 to the king ; another reason is given afterwards, that the Procurator 
 wished to have the king's opinion on the case, he being a Jew (yet 
 this opinion could only be founded on the ex parte statement of the 
 Apostle himself), in order that he might have something definite to 
 report to Eome. The Apostle accordingly relates afresh before this 
 august assembly the history of his conversion, not without repeated 
 assurances of his orthodoxy as a Jew, though at the same time 
 evading the real point of the accusation against him. The result 
 of this scene is the unanimous decision of the whole assembly : 
 oTt ovSev Oavdrov a^iov ^ Beafiwv irpdaaei 6 av6 paiiro'; ovto^ with 
 the additional declaration of Agrippa to Festus, aTroXekvaOai Svvaro 
 6 dvdpw'Tro'i ovToi;, ec fir] eTreKeKXrjTO Kaicrapa. This was the result 
 to which the author of the Acts wished to lead his reader, and he 
 does not neglect to point out the importance of such an opinion 
 from the mouth of one who was so well acquainted with all the 
 customs and religious controversies of the Jews, and who also knew 
 something of the history of Jesus (xxvi. 3). The question directly 
 put to the King by the Apostle (verse 27), iri(TTevei,<; ^acriXev 
 'AypiTTTTa Toll ■jrpo(f>rirai'; ; with the confident answer given by the 
 Apostle himself, dl8a on TnareveK, what purpose do they serve 
 but to increase the importance of the King's decision, by this 
 assurance of his orthodoxy ? But it can scarcely be imagined 
 that the decision of a King whose morals were not of the most 
 
Chap. VIII.] HIS ABBEST AT JEBUSALEM. 215 
 
 respectable, could have possessed such value in the Apostle's 
 eyes ; nor that he prized so highly the opportunity afforded 
 him of pleading his cause before the King, as the author of the 
 Acts of the Apostles represents him to have said at the outset of 
 his speech, xxvi. 2. 
 
CHAP TEE IX. 
 
 THE APOSTLE PAUL IN EOME HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MAETYEDOM. 
 
 In consequence of the Apostle's appeal to the Emperor, the 
 Procurator Festus ordered him to be removed from Ceesarea to Eome. 
 He travelled with some other prisoners under the escort of a 
 Eoman centirrion, whose humane treatment of him is warmly 
 spoken of ia the Acts. The detailed narrative of this journey, 
 apparently taken from an account of it by Luke, though betraying 
 another hand here and there, is yet the most authentic informa- 
 tion that the Acts gives us on the Apostle's life ; for the history of 
 his apostolic labours, however, it contains little of importance. 
 But as soon as he arrives in Eome we see him plunged into a 
 controversy with the Jews, the results of which demand our study 
 and attention. The most important statement bearing on the 
 Apostle's life which this part of the Acts contains, is that given 
 at the close of the work, that the Apostle remained two whole 
 years in Eome, and held free intercourse with all that came to him, 
 working unhindered for the kingdom of God by the preaching of 
 the gospel of Christ. "What makes this concluding remark, which 
 has been so much discussed, so enigmatical, is that in speaking 
 of a period of two years, it suggests that at the expiration of this 
 period there was a change in the Apostle's circumstances, and 
 that some definite event then took place. But what could this 
 have been ? If the appeal of the Apostle to the Emperor was 
 decided after this long delay, and the Apostle consequently set at 
 liberty, it does not seem conceivable that the author of the Acts 
 of the Apostles should pass over in utter silence an event for 
 
Chap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 217 
 
 which the reader is prepared by all that goes before, and which 
 would have been in such striking accordance with the apologetic 
 tendency of his work.-^ 
 
 The general assumption is that at the end of these two years 
 the Apostle was set at liberty, either in consequence of the verdict 
 of the Emperor, or in some other way ; that he then made several 
 journeys, especially one to Spain, but that he afterwards under- 
 went a second imprisonment at Eome, and at last suffered martyr- 
 dom along with the Apostle Peter. A second Eoman imp-isonment 
 is first spoken of by Eusebius, but the idea had already become 
 traditional in his time, and is based upon no other evidence than 
 the Epistles called by the Apostle's name, which were thought not 
 to be intelligible without it.^ Our opinion on this pretended fact, 
 as well as on aU that goes beyond the limit set by the Acts, depends 
 chiefly on the question how far the historical connection in which 
 these laterfortunes of the Apostle are embodied appears to be worthy 
 of our confidence. We still find Peter and Paul inseparable from 
 each other ; even in their death they are not divided. This is very 
 significant ; we cannot fail to see here the mythico-traditional work- 
 ing out of the parallel which the author of the Acts has instituted 
 between the two Apostles all along. The legend continues to expand 
 ia the direction of this definite idea ; and this process does not cease 
 till a belief is formed and takes possession of the mind of the period, 
 that Peter and Paul, the most illustrious of the Apostles, had founded 
 the Eoman Church together, and after this common work had suffered 
 a common martyrdom in the same city. Here the legend reaches 
 
 1 In order to explain this conclusion of the Acts of the Apostles, Schneoken- 
 burger remarks, p. 126 — "He came to Home and there preached uamolested : 
 fifTa iTa(Tr]s napprjcrias aKoXiiTas. Is not this a fitting conclusion? Is it not 
 quite in harmony with the design running through the whole history of Paul ?" 
 Certainly ; if, that is to say, the author of the Acts had no more positive result 
 to communicate ; if Paul was not actually acquitted and released. 
 
 ^ H. E. ii. 22. ToTC ph ovv diroXoyricraixevov aidis «Vi Trjv tov Ki]pvyiMTos Sta- 
 Kovlav \6yos e^^' oT^iKaaBai tov arto^Tokov hsvTspov 6' im^avTa ttj avTjj TroXet 
 Ta KOT avTov (Nepai/a) TEXEtafl^rai p.apTvplto iv a dea-fiols ixoptvos tov wpos Tt^d- 
 6eov devTepav (rvvraTTei iiTKTToXrjv, d/ioC arjiJiaivav ttjv te irpoTepav avTa y(Vop.€VTiv 
 dirokoylav Kol ttjv irapairodas T(\eia(Tiv, 
 
218 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 its completion. Its point of departure was simply what was 
 known of the life of Paul ; nothing more. Paul did actually come 
 to Eome : his office as Apostle to the Gentiles led him thither, and 
 we may also take it as a historical fact that he died there as a 
 martyr. In the case of Peter, however, we can find no basis for 
 the story but vague legends. It cannot be disputed that he 
 laboured for the Gospel beyond the bounds of Judea. At least 
 the Acts of the Apostles represents him as not only going into 
 Samaria, but also as visiting the cities of Phoenicia ; and, according 
 to Gal. ii. 11, he also appeared at Antioch. But on this point 
 further proof is wanting : nothing can be built on the passage 
 1 Cor. ix. 5. The Apostle Paul here says of himself, fiT) ovk e^oiJ^ev 
 e^ovalav dSeX,(j}7}v yvvalKa Trepiajeiv, to? km oi \onroi airoaTokoi, 
 Koi ol ahe\<^oi tov Kvpiov, km, K'n4>a<;, but this irepicvyeiv can only 
 refer to the Apostle Paul himself, and the sense of the words can 
 only be : Had he not the right to take with him on his missionary 
 journeys an dSe\(f>^ jvvtj as the rest of the Apostles had an aSeXc^i; 
 jvvfj ? In any case it may well be assumed that the foreign mis- 
 sionary activity of the Apostle Peter was directed exclusively to 
 the Jews, according to the arrangements made Gal. ii. 9. The 
 martyrdom of the Apostle Peter is certainly mentioned in the 
 New Testament, but it is only in the apocryphal-looking ap- 
 pendix to the Gospel of John, xxl 18, 19, and neither here nor 
 in the fourth epistle of Clemens Eomanus, ch. v., is the place speci- 
 fied. 1 Peter v. 13 shows, however, that when that Epistle was 
 written, the legend had fixed his residence at Eome; the inter- 
 pretation of Babylon by Eome agrees best with the whole tenor of 
 the Epistle. Perhaps we may see a slight allusion to this legend 
 in the two passages. Acts xix. 21 and xxiii. 11. Even at that 
 time, when the Apostle Paul first took the resolve to travel from 
 Ephesus by Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem, he is said to 
 have declared emphatically ort fiera to yevea-6ai fj-e eKel, Bel /ie 
 Koi 'Pa>iJL7]v ISelv, and when he had successfully passed through 
 the trial before the Sanhedrim, and the stormy scene with which 
 it ended, the Lord is represented as appearing to him on the 
 
Chap. IX.] ms IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 219 
 
 following night, and encouraging him with the words, edpaei, «? 
 7a/) Sisfiaprvpa ra irepl efiov eh 'lepovaaX^/j,, oxna ae Set koI eh 
 Pwp/qv fiaprvpriaai. In both these passages there is so marked a 
 suggestion, that the apostolate must reach its highest point, and 
 receive its crown of glory in the eh 'P^m^ fiaprvp^aai, that there 
 must be some special meaning in the phrase. In the case of an 
 author who displays so distinct and so persistent an apologetic 
 interest, it may not be too bold to suppose that the thought of the 
 Apostle Peter, whom legend had already taken to Eome, may have 
 been before his mind. Whether this be so or not, there was no 
 doubt about the Apostle Paul's case; but the author wishes to 
 make his claim to the honour as clear as possible, and makes him 
 express beforehand his knowledge of his destination. 
 
 Starting from this, and seeking to trace the elements of the legend 
 further, we find it divide into two different branches, one of which 
 takes an Anti-Pauline, the other a Petrino-Pauline direction. The 
 first of these forms is connected with Simon Magus, on whose account 
 Peter is made to come to Eome. Even the Acts of the Apostles 
 represents them as meeting in Samaria. When the Apostle 
 perceived the perverse nature of the Magus from his design to 
 obtain the Holy Spirit by impure means, he encountered the 
 danger of corruption which threatened Christianity through the 
 Magus. As for the question whether the Magus represents a real 
 historical person, it is clear from the Acts that he is the reflection 
 of a Samaritan popular deity. The religion of Samaria being con- 
 sidered a heathen one, he became the representative both of the 
 heretical Christianity which was mingled with elements of heathen- 
 ism, and of heathenism itself;^ and the Apostle Peter travelled 
 from place to place, from land to land, from east to west, hard on 
 the footsteps of the Magus who went before him, to combat him 
 in every place, and to refute the godless doctrine he promulgated. 
 This is the form in which the legend appears in the pseudo- 
 Clementine Homilies, and in the writings connected with them. 
 
 ' Die Chr. Gnosis, p. 306. A more accurate and detailed acooimt of Simon 
 Magus will be found in " Christenthum der drei ersten Jahrb.," p. 87, sq. 
 
220 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 In the same form Eusebius is also acquainted with it. As soon as 
 the Magus had fled before the Apostle from the east to the west, 
 and had attained so great success in Eome itself by means of his 
 magic arts, that he was there honoured as a god and had a 
 statue erected to him, Peter also appeared there. UapaTro'Sa? 
 •yovv €774 Trj'i avTri<; KXavhlov ^aaoXeia^ rj TravaiyaOo^ Koi 
 (pcKavOpcaroTarrj tSjv oKaiv trpovoia tov Kaprepov Kat, \ie^av raw 
 ' AiTocTToXwv, TOV apeTT]^ kveica rwv Xonrcov airavTcov •jrpoTffopov, 
 Uerpov, eVi rrjv 'Pa>fi7]v <us eTrl TrfKiKoinov Xv/Mecova ^lov %€tpa- 
 ryccjet 09 otarts jevvalo'i tov 0eov aTpaTrjyov tol^ Oecoi^ OTrXoii; 
 (j)pa^dp,evo<;, ttjv ■troXvTiixriTOV ep/iropeMV tov votjtov (^(bto? e| 
 dvaToXwv TOt? KaTo, Bvcnv eKOfMi^ev <f>'2<; avTo Kai Xojov ■ylnr^av 
 awTripLov, TO K7]pvj/J,a Trj<; Ta>v ovpavwv ^aaiXeia^ eva'yyeXi^op.evo';, 
 What is said here as well as by Justin ]\Iartyr in the lesser 
 " Apology," of a statue erected to this Simon in Eome, on an 
 island of the Tiber, with this inscription, '' Simoni deo Sancta," is 
 an evident mistake, a confusion of Simon jMagus with the Sabine 
 Eoman god Semo Sancus (who may also have been originally allied 
 with the ancient Eastern Sem, Semo) ; but the curious and im- 
 portant legend of the Magus and the Apostle Peter cannot have 
 been derived altogether from this circumstance. This then was 
 what brought the Apostle to Eome at so early a period. Tor the 
 truth of this tradition Eusebius appeals at the close of his narrative 
 (ii. 15) to Clement of Alexandria, who has related the history in 
 the sixth book of his Hypotyposes, and to the similar testimony 
 of Bishop Papias of Hierapolis. It is doubtful here whether 
 Clement and Papias are cited as witnesses for the whole of the 
 foregoing narrative about Simon Magus and Peter, or only for 
 that part of it which refers to the Gospel of Mark. Eusebius is 
 speaking about the reason why Mark composed his Gospel in 
 Eome; he says : "the great impression which Peter had made on 
 the Eomish Christians by his brilliant victory over Simon Magus, 
 had produced in them a strong desire to possess a written memorial 
 of the Christian doctrine he had preached to them. So on their 
 pressing entreaty, Mark, the companion of Peter, drew up the 
 
Chap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 221 
 
 Gospel which has been handed down under his name." As we 
 see in Eusebius vi. 14, Clement did actually mention Peter's 
 teaching in Eome, but whether the elder Papias did so too is 
 doubtful, as Eusebius can only have referred to the passage quoted 
 by him (iii. 39) from the works of Papias, in which it is only said 
 that the Gospel of Mark arose out of the doctrinal teachings of the 
 Apostle Peter. The Eomish origin of the Gospel of Mark seems, 
 moreover, to have been an ancient tradition, which may thus 
 have been well known to Papias ; and if he knew this, why 
 should he not have been acquainted with the rest of the 
 story which stood in close connection with it ? Mark came to 
 Eome only as the companion of Peter, but for what cause could 
 Peter have come to Eome at so early a period, but that the 
 presence of Simon Magus there made it necessary that he should 
 be there also ? It is very possible that even in this form the 
 legend had a certain antithetical relation to the Apostle Paul. 
 
 Simon Magus being the personification of heathenism, the 
 Apostle Peter, who followed him wherever he went, to combat him 
 and convert the people everywhere from his false doctrine, is 
 expressly described as the Apostle to the Gentiles, which he really 
 was not, but is now made to have been, in order not to leave this 
 renown exclusively to Paul. The pseudo-Clementine Homilies 
 expressly ascribe this title to the Apostle Peter, as he himself 
 says, iii. 59, " opfiav et? ra edvq ra ttoXXov? &eov<; Xeyovra, Krjpv^ai, 
 Koi SiBd^ai, on eh lariv 6 0eo? o? oiipavov eKTtae km yrjv km ra 
 ev avTOK irdvTa OTra}<; dyair^aavre'} avTov aooOrjvat Bvvrjdaxnv. 
 This sphere, which we are accustomed to see occupied exclusively 
 by Paul, as the Apostle to the Gentiles, is here described as being 
 filled by Peter equally, and in this same HomUy we are startled to 
 find, by plain indications, that Simon Magus, whom the Apostle 
 Peter overcomes, represents the Apostle Paul himself. It has 
 already been shown what unequivocal attacks upon the Apostle 
 Paul these Homilies contain ; and especially how their theory of 
 revelation is used to prove that he had forced his way among the 
 number of the Apostles by illegitimate means, and was destitute of. 
 
222 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 all true apostolic authority. This attack runs through the whole 
 of these Homilies. The great charge brought against Simon Magus 
 is that he had called Peter KaTeyvcoaiMevot (Horn, xvii 19). Now 
 this applies to the Apostle Paul (Gal. ii. 1 1). There is the same 
 reference when Peter, in the letter to James which is prefixed to 
 the Homilies, chap, ii., speaks of a difference of doctrine which he 
 not only knew of as a prophet, but because he could already see 
 the beginning of the evil " For some among the Gentiles," he 
 says, "have rejected my preaching in accordance with the law, and 
 have adopted the lawless and unworthy doctrine of a man opposed 
 to me. Even in my lifetime some have undertaken, through artful 
 interpretation of my teachings, to transform them into exhortations 
 to the abolition of the law, as if that were my real opinion, and I 
 were not straightforward in my teaching, which may God forbid 
 This conduct of theirs is nothing but opposition to the law of God, 
 which was given by Moses, and testified to by our Lord when he 
 said of its everlasting duration, ' Heaven and earth shall pass away, 
 but one jot or one tittle shall not pass away from the law.' Thus 
 he spoke that it might be kept in its entirety. But those persons 
 who, I know not how, profess to be able to tell what I think, and 
 to understand the teachings which I deliver better than I do myself, 
 say of those teachings, that their doctrine and intention are such 
 as I never intended them to be. If such persons dare to utter 
 such lies in my lifetime, how much more will they dare to lie after 
 my death !" 
 
 There can scarcely be any doubt that this av6pa>iro<; £x6po<:, 
 whose avo/jLot; koI (f>\vapo}£T]'i B(,SaaKa\la the Gentiles accepted, is 
 the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul. He is also that TrXaVo?, of whom 
 Peter says, Hom. ii. 17, that Simon Magus came to the Gentiles 
 before him, but that he (Peter) followed him, eTreXOeov ti? a-Kortp 
 <f>o}^, (B? ayvoia yiKoaii;, tu? voa^ iaai^. oi/Ttu? St; w? aXrjdr]<; rjfjMV 
 ■7rpo(f)riT'r]'; euprjKev, rrpcoToii ->|reiiSe? Sel ixdeip evayyeKiov vwo 
 ifkavov Tivo'i Kai, eW oi/tw? fiera Kadabpecriv rov dyiov roirov 
 evayyeXi-ov a\r]6e'i xpvcfia Siave/KpOrjvai, eU eiravopdaaiv rmv 
 eaofievav alpia-ecov. The false gospel of this heretical teacher, on 
 
Chap. IX.] HIS IMPBI80NMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 223 
 
 which the true one follows, is the Pauline gospel of the abolition 
 of the law, and the words fiera KaOaipecnv tov aylov tottov are not 
 merely a piece of chronology, but an aUusion to Acts xxL 28, 
 according to which passage the Jews fell upon Paul with the cry, 
 01IT09 etTTCv avdpwiro^, o Kara tov Xaou Kal tov vofiov km tov 
 TOTTOV tovtov TTuvTa^ TravTaj(pv BiSda-K(ov, bti tc km "EXXrjvai} 
 eiarirya/yev et? to lepov Kai KeKocvcoKe tov ayiov tottov tovtov. With 
 reference to the occurrence here narrated, Paul's conduct, aiming, 
 as it was thought, at the violent abolition of the Mosaic law, and 
 all the institutions of Judaism, is designated as a Ka6aipe(Ti,<s tov 
 dyiov TOTTOV. His wild and characteristically heathen attack upon 
 the law was thus represented as a prelude to the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem and the temple, the aryi,o<; tottov, by the Eomans. These 
 charges show the genuine Ebionitish spirit and character of these 
 Homilies. The Ebionites saw in the Apostle Paul nothing but an 
 apostate from the law, and a false teacher, and they rejected all his 
 Epistles.^ Epiphanius could have mentioned, if he had chosen, 
 many other particulars of their abuse of the Apostle Paul.^ Men 
 are apt to think that those whom they detest as heretics and inno- 
 vators in religion have never been true members of the religion 
 against which they have thus grievously transgressed, and so the 
 Ebionites maintained that Paul was no Jew by birth, but a Greek 
 or Gentile, born of Gentile parents, and who had only in later life 
 become a proselyte to Judaism. To account for his inimical 
 attitude towards Judaism a story was told which reminds us of 
 many other charges originating in the same spirit. When Paul, 
 the Ebionites asserted, came at a later period to Jerusalem and 
 remained there for some time, he wished to marry a daughter of 
 the High Priest. With this view he became a proselyte, and sub- 
 mitted to circumcision, Eailing, however, to obtain his desire, 
 he vented his wrath and vexation by writing against circumcision 
 and the Sabbath, and the law generally.^ It may be asserted that it 
 ' Ireneeus contra Haer., i. 26. Eusebius, H. E. iii. 27. 
 
 ^ Ilepi TOV ayiov JlavKov, ojj ^Xaa-^rffiovvres airbv 'Kiyovcriv, noa-a ?x<b Xeyeiv ; 
 Haer. xxx. 25. 
 
 ^ Epiphanius, cap. xvi. 
 
224 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part I, 
 
 was only in the extreme development of their heresy that the 
 Ebionites took up so hostile an attitude towards the Apostle Paul ; 
 but we must not forget that the tendency which, as it increased, 
 constituted Ebionitism a heresy, was present in it from the beginning. 
 The Jewish- Christian teachers whom Paul combated in his Epistles 
 afford the clearest evidence of the feeling with which the Jewish- 
 Christians regarded the Apostle Paul even in the first age of the 
 Church, in the period when the antagonism between Ebionitism 
 and Paulinism was only beginning to arise. Wherever Ebionitism 
 appeared, whether in a more or less advanced stage, the same views 
 and feelings with regard to the Apostle Paul must to some extent 
 have prevailed. Papias and Hegesippus belonged to the Jewish- 
 Christian or Ebionite party, and we cannot be surprised to find, 
 even in the few fragments of their writings which have been handed 
 down to us, allusions which make us certain of their anti-Pauline 
 tendency. Papias took a great deal of trouble (as he himself tells 
 us in Eusebius, H. E. iii. 39) to collect together and keep in remem- 
 brance all the information about the disciples of the Lord that he 
 could glean from living tradition, which he accounted of more value 
 than written documents. For this end he made inquiries specially 
 of those who had been in any way connected with the original 
 disciples of Jesus. " Oii yap," he says, " toi(! to, TroXka Xeyovaiv 
 e^aipov (acT'Tvep oi, ttoWoi,, aWa tok TaXrjdy BiBaaKOVO'iv, ovSe TOt? 
 TW! aX\oTpia<; evroXa? fj,vr]fiovevovcriv, aWa to7^ to? wapa tov 
 Kvpiov TTj iTiarei BeBofj,eva<; Kao air avTrj(; •7rapayivofieva<; Trj<! 
 aX.Tjdeia'i." Therefore he carefully inquired for what Andrew, 
 Peter, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of 
 the Lord had said. Not only is there no mention made here of the 
 Apostle Paul, but it is not improbable that a man who laid so much 
 weight on tradition which went back directly to the doctrine and 
 person of Christ, should have had the Apostle Paul and his adher- 
 ents in view, when he spoke of those who ra? aWorpwis evTo\a<i 
 /xvrjfiovevovai, in opposition to those who, in what they knew of the 
 Lord, possessed the utterances of truth itself. Photius has pre- 
 served a remarkable fragment on Hegesippus, in his extracts from 
 
■ Chap. IX.] EI8 IMPRISONMENT AND MARTIRBOM. 225 
 
 a work of the Monophysite Stephen Gobarus.^ The work of 
 Stephen Gobarus consisted of a series of articles in which he col- 
 lected together the contradictory declarations of the teachers of the 
 Church. Thus he brings forward the statement, ort ra -nroLfiacrfie'va 
 Tol<; SiKaiotv ayada ovre 0(j)6aXfi6<; elBev ovre ou? rjKovaev, ovre 
 eiTi Kaphiav avOpcoirov avejSr], and in contrast to this he goes on : 
 Hyrjo-nnrot; fievrot, ap^ato? re avrjp koI dwocTToXiKO'i ev to> irifiirrcp 
 Tcov VTro/jLvrj/u.aTayv, ovk olB on Kai Trada)v ndrTjv jj^ev elpijaOai raOra 
 Xeyeo /cat Kara'^evheaOai tovv ravra (pap,evov<; tcov re Oeieov 
 ypa(f>(ov Kai tov Kvpiov \6yovTo<;' fj,aKapioi o'l o<^6aXp,ol vp,wv ol 
 ySXeTTOj/Te? Kat, ra ura vfiav to. aKovovra. The first extract is 
 taken from 1 Cor. ii. 9, and the charge of false doctrine seems 
 therefore to point to the Apostle Paul. He is said to have made 
 an untrue statement in these words, and to have contradicted the 
 words of the Lord, Matt. xiii. 1 6. In this passage Jesus calls his 
 disciples blessed, because they see and hear what many prophets 
 and righteous men had desired to see and hear, but had not seen 
 nor heard. The reason why they are called blessed, is the direct 
 personal intercourse with Jesus, which the Apostles were pri- 
 vileged to have. This utterance of the Lord seems to Hegesippus 
 to conflict with what the Apostle Paul says, 1 Cor. ii. 9, " dwd 
 Ka6a<} yeypairrai- a o(^daXp,o<i ovk eiSe, Kat ou? ovk ijKovae, koI 
 67rt Kaphiav avdpwirov ovk avt^T), a rjToi/jiaaev 6 ©eo? roll aya- 
 irwcTLV avTOV. rjfilv Be UTreKaXv-yfrev o 0eo? Bca tov TrvevfiaTO<i 
 avTov," and as Hegesippus undoubtedly understands these words 
 to refer to the manner in which Paul asserted that he had been 
 called to the apostolic office, namely, by a special revelation, we 
 have here the same contention as is set up in the pseudo-Clemen- 
 tine HomUies, when these deny the true characteristics of apostle- 
 ship to the Apostle Paul, because he had become an Apostle only 
 by a revelation in a vision, and not, as the other Apostles, by 
 immediate intercourse with Jesus. Because this qualification for 
 the apostolic office was wanting to him, Hegesippus, speaking in 
 the spirit of Ebionitism, declares him to be a liar, and his asser- 
 
 1 Bibl. Cod., 232. 
 VOL. I. P 
 
226 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 tion that a man may become an Apostle as he had, without any 
 outward hearing or seeing, to be a groundless one (fiarrjv eiprjaOai 
 ravTo). There is no reason whatever why we should take the 
 words of Hegesippus in any other sense than that which they so 
 obviously suggest, and which satisfies so well the requirements of 
 the argument in which they occur. All that we know of Hege- 
 sippus leaves us in no doubt of his Ebionitism.^ It will not help 
 us much to suppose with Neander that he may have said this not 
 as against Paul, but in the vehemence of his zeal against the 
 opponents of the material millennium, which the Pauline passage 
 already quoted, and others like it, might be used to discredit, as 
 they are opposed to sensuous ideas of the happiness of the future.^ 
 Such zeal for the material millennium would simply stamp him as 
 a genuine Ebionite, and warrant us in looking for the usual Ebion- 
 ite view of the Apostle Paul.^ It is just a strong expression of 
 these views, when it is said of the Apostle Paul that he is no 
 Jew but a Gentile, a Samaritan — that very Simon Magus who 
 was conquered by the Apostle Peter. It may reasonably be sup- 
 posed that this form of the legend, according to which Peter's 
 controversy with the Magus made him follow that personage even 
 to Eome, originated in the anti-Pauline tendency of Ebionitism. 
 
 ^ Cf. my remarks on this subject in the TheoL Jahrb., 1844, p. 571. 
 
 ^ l^eander's Church History, ii. 431 (Bohn's edition). 
 
 ^ The only objection that can be made to this reference of the passage of 
 Hegesippus to the Apostle Paul, is that according to another passage from the 
 same work of Hegesippus (Eusebius, H. E. iii. 32) the Church up to the time of 
 the first Gnostics had remained a pure untainted virgin, and only after the holy 
 company of the Apostles was broken up did the aSeos irXaprj begin. But it mnst 
 not be forgotten that the Church at that time remained so only ev aSrjKa irov 
 (TKOTei (f)ci)\ev6vT<ov cto"€Tt rdre twv, ci Kai Tives VTT^p^ov, napa<p3eLpctv fVtx*'" 
 povvrav Tov vyirj Kavova Tov ararrjplov KTjpvypuTos, At that time, then, vnrjpxon 
 Toifs, as Peter speaks of such rives in the epistle to James in the Homilies, 
 chapter ii., ert fiov irepiovros €irf)^elpri<rdv TLVfs, etc. Although Hegesippus 
 attached no further importance to these nvcs, it was only because the immediate 
 presence of the Apostles seemed to him so overpowering that a heretical element, 
 even did it exist, could not flourish. The expressions airfi fj aKi]6(ia, ij ev6fos 
 iTo<j>ia, which Papias and Hegesippus use of the person of Christ, are very char- 
 acteristic of their Ebionite position. The expressions are used in the Homilies 
 to point out the true prophets. Papias thought he heard the living voice of this 
 truth in the traditions which he collected. 
 
Chap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 227 
 
 The other form of the legend represents the two Apostles as 
 in fraternal agreement instead of being at enmity. They work 
 together in their vocation, share the same martyr-death, and the 
 scene of their common and glorious martyrdom is Eome, the 
 Eternal City of the world. The comparison of the different 
 witnesses on this legend shows clearly how it concentrated itself 
 more and more on the common work and end which the two 
 Apostles had found in Eome. Clement of Eome, the oldest 
 witness on this side, merely speaks of the martyrdom with which 
 the two Apostles ended the great work of their life. In his first 
 Epistle to the Corinthians (chap. iii. sqq.), he reminds this church, 
 which was again divided into parties, of the great mischief which 
 is excited by envy and malevolence, and exhorts it to order and 
 unity. After quoting some Old Testament examples in support 
 of his exhortations, he continues (chap, v.) : '^X\' iva rmv ap-)(ala>v 
 VTroSety/iarmv TravaccfieOa, ekdafiev cTrt tov<: eyyicrra yevo/Mevov<i 
 adXrjTa^' Xa^a/xev ttj? lyeveas: i^fi&v ra yevvala VTroSeiyfiara, Aid 
 ilqXov Kol <f>ddvov ol jjueyiarob Kav BiKaioTaroi arvKoi eBt,aij(97](rav 
 Kot 60)? Oavdrov rjXQov. AalScofiev irpo o(f>da\,fia>v rffiav row a/ya~ 
 6ov<; airoa-ToXoxK. 'O TIeTpo<; hia ^rjXov aZiKov ov^, eva, ovBe Svo, 
 aWa Trkeiova<; vTrrjveiyKev irovov^, Kat ovt(o fj.apTvp7]cra<s etropevdr} 
 et? TOP otfteiXdfievov tottov tij? Sofij?. Aia ^rj\ov o Uai/Xos vtto- 
 /lovrjt: Ppa^eiov virea-'xev, CTrraKK Sea-fia <f)opecra<;, pa^BevdeK, 
 \idaa-6e[<;, KTjpv^ y€v6fj,evo<{ ev re rrj avaToXjj Kai ev rr) Bvcrei, to 
 yevvalov t^s Trto-Tew? avTov AcXe'o? eka^ev, BiKaiocriivrjv BiBa^ai 
 oKov Tov Kofffiov, Koi eVt to rep/ia t^? Bvaeax; e\0a>v, km fiap- 
 Tvpr^trat; hri tS>v r^yovfiivaiv, outojs ain]X\ar/T) roO Koafiov, Kat ei/; 
 TOV arfiov tottov eiropevdi) virofiovrji; yevd/Mevo^ /jieyto'TO'; viroypafiiJ,o<;. 
 It may be reasonably doubted here whether the /lapTvpelv of 
 Peter is to be understood in a special sense, of martyrdom, or in a 
 general sense, of his witness to the truth throughout his apostolic 
 labours. But, even irrespective of this, there is little advan- 
 tage conceded to Peter over Paul; he rather holds the second 
 place. Not only are the long and checkered labours of Paul 
 described in detail, but it is specially mentioned that he was a herald 
 
228 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part L 
 
 of the faith in the west as well as in the east, and when he arrived 
 at the end of his career was the teacher of the whole world. Nor 
 is there a word to show that the two Apostles suffered martyrdom 
 together ; we are led rather to infer the contrary, since it is said 
 only of Paul and not of Peter, that he worked in the west as well 
 as in the east. They are merely mentioned together as fidprvpe^ 
 in the wider sense ; and a distinction is drawn between them, as 
 Paul, having come eTrt to rep/ia t^? Bvaeco'; xac fiapTvpricra^ 
 eTrl rS)v '^yovfievcov, is called the great example of steadfast 
 endurance. At a later period, when the martyrdom of Peter was 
 an established fact, there was still some variety of opinion on the 
 point whether both the Apostles suffered martyrdom at the same 
 time. We find in the transactions of a Eoman Synod, held under 
 Bishop Gelasius i., the following sentence in reference to Peter, 
 " Cui data est etiam societas S. Pauli, qui non diverse sicut heeretici 
 garriunt, sed uno tempore, eodemque die, gloriosa morte cum 
 Petro in urbe Eoma cum Nerone agonizans coronatus est." ^ It is 
 true that the difference mentioned here is only one of date, but if 
 the two Apostles did not suffer at the same time as well as at the 
 same place, it makes a very different affair, and so the " garrire" that 
 is charged to the heretics probably covers a wider difference, and rests 
 on some old tradition. The tendency, however, which led to the 
 Apostles being placed in the relation to each other which we find in 
 the passage quoted from Clemens Eomanus (it is rather juxtaposition 
 than identification with each other in this passage) tended increas- 
 ingly in the further development of the legend to represent them 
 as having everything in common. They not only suffered a common 
 martyrdom at the same time and in the same place, that is to say in 
 Eome, but it is no accidental meeting that unites them here ; they 
 had entered on the journey to Eome from the same point of their 
 common labours, as if with a view to the same martyrdom. This 
 fact is specially dwelt on in the testimony of the Corinthian Bishop 
 Dionysius, who lived soon after the middle of the second century. 
 Eusebius quotes him as a witness of the common Eoman martyr- 
 ^ Cf. Valesius in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. ii. 25. 
 
Chap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 229 
 
 dom of the two Apostles in the words (ii. 25), tu? Se Kara rov 
 avTov aficfxo Kaipov efiaprvpijaav, KopivOicov eiriaKoiro'; Aiovvaio'; 
 ejjpacjxo'i Pafiaioi'i oimiXwv oihe Trta? -TraplaTrjaiv ravTa Koi vfielt; 
 Bia T'jj? ToaavTrj<; vov6e(Tia<; ttjv aTro Uerpov Kol TIavXov (pvreiav 
 ryevrjdelaav Pco/xaiaiv re kclI Kopivdlasv avveKepdaare. Kal yap 
 ap,^co Km et? Tr\v rjixerepav KopivOov <f)VTeva-avre<; '^fia<;, 6fj,oiw<; 
 Be /cat et? rrjv IraXiav Ofiocre BiBd^avTe^ efiapTvp-qaav Kara tov 
 avTov Kaipov. Not merely did the two Apostles suffer the same 
 martyrdom in Eome — they were also the common founders of the 
 Corinthian as well as of the Roman Church. From this time forward 
 it is a standing tradition that the Eoman Church, as Irenseus says 
 in the well-known passage,^ was the " maxima et antiquissima et 
 omnibus cognita, a gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro et Paulo 
 Eomffi fundata et constituta ecclesia." The two Apostles now stand 
 side by side like brothers, united together in death as in life; both 
 share the same renown. But this equilibrium is soon lost in the 
 preponderance of one over the other. For it is something else 
 than the simple truth of history which places them so fraternally 
 side by side, and in the growth of the legend there is a rivalry 
 working between them. In the earliest form of the legend Paul 
 had been treated as an adversary, and now he has to yield pre- 
 cedence at least to Peter, who is gaining the upper hand of him. If 
 both Apostles, as TertuUian says.Mn the "felix ecclesia totam 
 doctrinam cum sanguine suo profuderunt," it is only Peter who 
 " passioni dominicee adaquatur," whilst Paul " Johannis " (the 
 Baptist) " exitu coronatur." With Origen this story has grown.^ 
 After preaching the Gospel in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappa- 
 docia, and Asia, Peter had at last come to Eome, and ev 'Ptofij) 
 yevdfj,evo<; avecrKoKoirlaOr) Kara KecpaXrj';, ovrtu? avra a^twcra? 
 waOelv, on which Eufinus gives the following commentary in his 
 translation of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius : " Crucifixus 
 est deorsum, capite demerso, quod ipse ita fieri deprecatus est, ne 
 
 ' Contra Hser. iii. 3. 
 
 2 De Preescr. Hffir. c. 36. Compare Adv. Marc. iv. 5. Petrus passioni dominicse 
 adsequatiir. 
 
 ' In the passage in Eusebius, H. E. iii. 1. Compare Dem. Ev. 37; H. E. ii. 25. 
 
230 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 exsequari Domino videretur," although TertuUian takes no objec- 
 tion to the "adsequari passioni dominicse." Their graves even 
 were not allowed to be in the same place. The Presbyter Caius, 
 living under the Koman Bishop Zephyrinus, was the first to speak, 
 as Eusebius states, of the martyr-graves of the two Apostles. In 
 his work against the Montanist Proclus he is said to have men- 
 tioned the place, " evOa t<ov eiprj/ievav airotXToKoov ra lepa <tk7]v<o- 
 fiara KwraredeiTai" with the words, " £7&> he ra rpoiraia tS)v 
 ' AiroaToKcov e'^to Bel^ai. 'Eav yap OeXrjcr'pv aireXOelv eiri tov 
 BariKavov, t] eirt Trjv oSop Tr]v 'Slcmav, evpijaeif ra rpoiraia 
 TOiv TavTTjv ISpvcra/jbevav tt^v eKKK-rjcnav, and Eusebius states, in 
 proof of the trustworthiness of the traditions concerning Peter 
 and Paul, that the places where the two Apostles were buried 
 were generally known at this time, and were called by this name.'' 
 Caius does not indeed give the names of the Apostles in connec- 
 tion with these Tpoiraia, but there can be no doubt that at this 
 time the legend had already assigned to the Apostle Peter the 
 more distinguished place in the Vatican, and to Paul that outside 
 the city on the road leading to Ostia. Still more striking is the 
 subordination of Paul to Peter in the narrative of Lactantius: 
 " Quumque jam Nero imperaret, Petrus Eomam advenit, et editis 
 quibusdam miraculis, quae virtute ipsius Dei, data sibi ab eo 
 potestate faciebat, convertit multos ad justitiam, Deoque templum 
 fidele ac stabile collocavit. Qua re ad Neronem delata, quum 
 animadverteret, non modo Eomse, sed ubique quotidie magnam 
 multitudinem deficere a cultu idolorum et ad religionem novam, 
 damnata vetustata, transire, ut erat execrabilis ac nocens tyrannus 
 — Petruin cruci afiixit et Paulum interfecit." ^ Here Paul is only 
 casually mentioned ; the legend confines itself to Peter j he alone 
 is the original and true founder of the Eoman Church. 
 
 As for these miraculous deeds which excited so much attention, 
 there is no doubt that the reference is to Simon Magus, and so 
 
 ^ liia-TovTai TT]v la'Topiai' tj Uerpov Koi IlavXov els devpo KpaTTjiraaa eVi TUtv 
 airSBi KoifiriTripiav npoirprjCTit. H. E. ii. 25. 
 ^ De Mort. Persecut. cap. 2. 
 
Chap. IX.] HIS IMPBI80NMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 231 
 
 this story indicates to us that stream of tradition which appears 
 in the full development of legend in the Acta SS. Pauli et PetrL^ 
 In these Acta, when Paul came to Eome Peter was already there 
 with Simon Magus. The greater part of the people was con- 
 verted by the preaching of the two Apostles. (Peter even converted 
 Nero's wife Livia, and Agrippina the wife of the Prefect Agrippa ; 
 Paul converted many soldiers and members of the Imperial house- 
 hold.) But the Magus, working against them out of envy, also 
 obtained followers by his magic arts, although Peter strove against 
 his sorcery by the miracles which he worked, by healing the sick, 
 casting out demons, and raising the dead. The contest of the two 
 Apostles with the Magus was carried on before the Emperor Nero, 
 and ended by the Magus being struck dead to the earth by the 
 prayer of the Apostles, as he was about to ascend flying to heaven. 
 After his death, he was divided into four parts and changed into a 
 stone consisting of four flints ; whOe the two Apostles were put to 
 death as martyrs by Nero's command. Paul was beheaded outside 
 the city, Peter was crucified, and by his own desire, on a reversed 
 cross ; for as the Lord who had come down to earth from heaven 
 had been raised up on a cross standing upright, so he who was 
 summoned from earth to heaven ought to turn his head to the 
 earth and his feet to heaven. We may remark here the relation 
 which Paul bears to Peter, as it is given us in the declaration made 
 by Peter before Nero. " Everything that Paul has said is true. 
 For a long time I have received many letters from our Bishops all 
 over the world about what Paul has said and done. When he was 
 a persecutor of the law^ the voice of Christ called to him from 
 heaven and taught him the truth, because he was not an enemy of 
 our faith through malevolence but through ignorance. For there 
 
 1 First edited by Thilo in the two Halle Osterprogrammes, 1837, 1838. 
 
 2 AiaKTov yap airov ovtos tov vd/iou, (jjavrj airov Xpurroi « roi ovpavov 
 «oX((Te. If Paul was converted as a persecutor of the law, then his conversion to 
 Christianity is represented as a conversion from his enmity to the law. The law 
 and truth, or Christianity, are here identified. From this standpoint, the origmal 
 Ebionitish one, the Apostle's persecution of Christianity was the same thing as 
 his Christian Antinomianism. He had therefore to be converted from his Anti- 
 nomianism if he were to be counted an Apostle. 
 
232 
 
 LIFB AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 were before us false Christs such as Simon, and false Apostles and 
 Prophets, who attacked the sacred writings and sought to abohsh 
 the truth. Against these there could only be opposed a man who 
 from childhood had devoted himself to nothing else than the in- 
 vestio-ation of the secrets of the Divine Law, and the defence of 
 
 O 
 
 truth and the persecution of falsehood. But as his persecution 
 did not arise from malevolence but only from a wish to defend the 
 law, the Truth himself appeared to him out of Heaven, and said, 
 I am Jesus whom thou persecutest : cease from persecuting me, 
 for I am the truth, for whom and against whose enemies thou 
 must now be seen to fight." Here mystical tradition has carried 
 its conciliatory tendency to the utmost extent possible. All the 
 elements of the legend are incorporated, and the two Apostles are 
 brought as near each other as was compatible with maintaining the 
 primacy of Peter. Peter and the Magus are in Eome together, 
 but the scene is now laid in the reign of Nero, in order to allow of 
 Paul's taking his part in it. The Ebionite identification of him 
 with the Magus has entirely disappeared : he is converted by Christ 
 for the purpose of confuting the Magus. But though he is now 
 acknowledged as a brother and Apostle side by side with Peter, 
 he holds distinctly the second place. When the two Apostles 
 prepare for the last and crowning act of the defeat of the Magus, 
 the Acta makes Paul himself say to Peter : " It is my part to pray 
 to God on my knees, but yours to bring to nothing what you 
 see the Magus do, because you were first chosen by the Lord." 
 Peter was the true miracle-worker and conqueror of the Magus.^ 
 
 1 The form in which these Acta have come down to us cannot be very ancient, 
 but the traditional elements which they contain are much older. Even Origen is 
 acquainted with both the crucifixion Kara KerpakTJs, and the aiipearance of Christ, 
 related also in these Acta, as having been vouchsafed to Peter before his martyr- 
 dom, when Christ told him he was being crucified again. For these facts Origen 
 refers to npa^fis IlauXov. Joh. T. xx. u. 12, compare De Princ. 1, 2. Fortasse 
 haee Acta, remarks Thilo, part ii. p. 24, fueruut Petri et Pauli, sicut probabile est 
 praadieatioues Petri et Pauli fuisse unum idemque seriptum quod modo sub alteru- 
 trius modo sub utriusque nomine allegatur. I regret not having been able to 
 make use of the critical discussion of these Acta which Thilo announces at the 
 close of his Programme. 
 
.Chap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 233 
 
 Taking a comprehensive view of the legend in its various forms 
 and modifications, we cannot but see that Peter is the favourite. 
 The direction in which the legend moves is sufficient to show this. 
 The actual achievements on which it is based belong directly and 
 indubitably to Paul ; yet Peter eventually gets all the credit of 
 them ; he leaves Paul scarcely any share in the foundation of the 
 Eoman Church. This evident bias not only makes us suspicious 
 of the legend, but produces a disregard of well-established historical 
 facts which nothmg but the presence of the bias can explain. The 
 Acts of the Apostles, which bears the character of an original 
 document in the part where the Apostle's journey to Eome is 
 narrated more than anywhere else, says nothing of a meeting of 
 Peter and Paul in Eome, and we should thus have the indirect 
 testimony of the Acts for the assumption which is usually made, 
 that the meeting of the two Apostles in Eome took place after the 
 time at which the Acts concludes. If the two Apostles really (as 
 the Corinthian Bishop Dionysius says was the case) travelled from 
 Corinth to Italy and Eome in company, this must have been a 
 different journey from that described in the last chapters of the 
 Acts of the Apostles, since not the least trace is found either in 
 the Acts, or in the Epistles reputed to have been written during 
 Paul's imprisonment at Eome, of his having been in company with 
 the Apostle Peter during his journey (which besides did not touch 
 at Corinth) or during his stay in Eome at that time. In this case 
 he must have been liberated from this imprisonment and have 
 undergone a second with Peter afterwards. Now is there anything 
 to make this probable ? The testimony of Eusebius rests (as has 
 been already remarked) merely on an inference drawn from the 
 second Epistle to Timothy ; and thus this Epistle itself comes to 
 be the sole support of the theory. But the genuineness of the 
 Pastoral Epistles has long been called in question for weighty 
 reasons, and the justice of the doubt has been acknowledged to 
 such an extent that they cannot be held to afford a good founda- 
 tion for any certain conclusion. We should thus be led to lay the 
 more weight on the passage of Clemens Eomanus, quoted above. 
 
234 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 Neander asserts without hesitation that the repfia rrjt Bva-eai, the 
 limit of the west, which Paul is there said to have reached, cannot 
 mean Eome, and would naturally suggest Spain. If, he says, we 
 infer from this statement of Clement that Paul carried out his 
 design of visiting Spain, or at least that he went farther west than 
 Italy, we are obliged to suppose that he had been liberated from 
 his imprisonment at Eome.^ This, however, is a very unfounded 
 conclusion, and in spite of all Neander's protestations I must still 
 maintain that the much-vexed phrase Te'pfia t'^? Svcrew? must be 
 taken differently. The question, as Schenkel very correctly 
 observes, is whether Clement speaks of a repfia t^s Bva-etot in an 
 objective sense, as being the rep^ia for the whole world, or in a 
 subjective sense, as a ripp-a for Paul only. For the world the 
 Tepfia rrit Bvaeax; could only be the extreme west ; for Paul it 
 would be the place that set the last limit to his progress westwards. 
 If this limit to his apostolic labours was reached at Eome, why 
 should Eome not have been called a rdppa in reference to the 
 Apostle, and, as it lay in the west, why should it not be further 
 described, from that circumstance, as repp^a rfi<; Suo-ew??^ " He came 
 6t? TO repp^ T^? Suo-eca? " would then mean, as I have already inter- 
 preted the words, he came to his appointed goal in the west. As 
 it was situated in the Occident, it was the natural place of his 
 oceidere. The words suggest this latter idea without stretching. 
 No further objections have been raised against this explanation, 
 and I may thus refer the reader to what I have already said on the 
 subject.^ 
 
 If these two points of support are withdrawn from the theory of 
 a second imprisonment, it at once falls to pieces. But a positive 
 argument may be raised against it, namely, the improbability that 
 the Apostle, under the circumstances as they then existed, was 
 
 1 Planting and Training, i. 332. 
 
 2 SohenkeL TheoL Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 71. Die Zweite Gefangenschaft dea 
 Apostela Paulua. 
 
 3 Compare Tub. Zeitschrift fUr Theol. 1831, No. 4. Die Chriatus-Partei, etc., p. 
 149, and Die sogeuannteu Pastoral-Briefe, p. 63. Tub. Zeitschrift f. Theol. 1838. 
 3. Ueber den Ursprung dea Episo. p. 46. 
 
Chap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 235 
 
 released from one imprisonment and underwent another. If, in 
 accordance with the most probable calculation, we place the arrival 
 of the Apostle Paul in Eome ia the spring of the year 62, and add 
 the two years of his imprisonment, of which the Acts of the 
 Apostles speaks, what can be more natural than to suppose that 
 the Apostle fell a victim to the Christian persecution under Nero 
 in the year 64, which is described by Tacitus (Annal. xv. 44) ? 
 How unlikely is the assumption that after an imprisonment of two 
 years' duration, he was liberated just at that crisis of misfortune 
 for the Christians, and how can we believe that the same scene was 
 repeated, so short a time afterwards, under circumstances so nearly 
 identical? The wildness of the combinations in which those 
 writers involve themselves who attempt the very least arrangement 
 of the data which are thought to point to a second imprisonment,^ 
 certainly does nothing to diminish our confidence in placing the 
 catastrophe of the Apostle's life at the conclusion of the first. 
 
 If the second imprisonment of the Apostle Paul be thus full of 
 improbability, the martyrdom of the Apostle Peter at Rome becomes 
 problematical also, depending, as it does, mainly upon the former. 
 It loses its connection with history. The statement is that the 
 two Apostles were in Eome and died there together, but they can- 
 not have been there together unless we fix the date of their visit 
 after the time covered by the Acts. Now our information about 
 the Apostle Paul does not warrant us to overstep this limit. If 
 then we consider the martyrdom of the Apostle Peter at Eome as 
 a separate question, what historical evidence have we in favour of 
 it, and what degree of probability does it possess ? The oldest and 
 most reliable testimony we have, that, namely, of the Epistle 
 written by Clemens Eomanus at Eome itself, can scarcely be held 
 to say anything at all of the Apostle's martyrdom. Dionysius of 
 Corinth is the first to mention the fact distinctly. But what a low 
 
 ^ We may compare, for example, the combinations (which are not the worst 
 of their kind) made by the author of the treatise in the Theol. Quartalaohr. 
 TJeber den Aufenthalt des Apostels Petrua in Kom. 1820, p. 623, cf. 1830, p. 
 636. 
 
236 LIFE AND WOBK OF PA UL. [Part I. 
 
 conception must we form of his trustworthiness as a historian, if 
 we only consider this one fact, that in direct contradiction to the 
 Apostle's own Epistles he makes not only Paul, but Paul and Peter 
 together, the founders of the Corinthian Church ? This is enough 
 to justify us in thinking that as Peter was not the founder of the 
 Corinthian Church, so neither was he ever at Corinth. It must 
 have been the Petrine party in Corinth, who, wishing to claim for 
 themselves the merit of the foundation of the Church, caused it to 
 be asserted that Peter himself had been at Corinth. The testimony 
 of Dionysius of Corinth has been thought worthy of greater credit 
 than that of Caius of Eome, not only because he lived half a cen- 
 tury earlier, but also because he is thought to have been less biassed. 
 Caius naturally wished to enhance the glory of the Chiuxh of 
 Eome by the fact which he reports, but Dionysius plainly states 
 that the two great Apostles died not in his Church, but at Eome.^ 
 Dionysius lived, it is true, half a century before Caius, but even he 
 was separated by an interval of more than a century from the cir- 
 cumstances to which he bears witness. He can only testify there- 
 fore to the legend, current in his time, of the common journey of the 
 two Apostles from Corinth to Eome and their martyrdom which 
 there ensued. He does not enable us to judge whether this is 
 merely a legend or the account of a real historical fact. The bias 
 which Caius of Eome must have had for his own Church, is of course 
 not likely to have operated with Dionysius ; but the question is 
 not whether the one or the other is the originator and author of 
 the legend in a special interest, but only whether an unhistorical 
 legend current in their day was believed and related by them as 
 historically true. It certainly cannot be disputed that this is 
 possible, and if the readiness with which such legends were believed 
 would seem to argue a certain interest in them, how easily can we 
 imagine such an interest as existing in the case of Dionysius of 
 Corinth ! Legends tending to the glorification of the Apostles 
 were in general readily believed, — most readily, it is true, in cases 
 where they also served to enhance the glory of the Church to 
 ' Of. Olshausen, Introduction to his Comm. Uber den Brief an die Riimer, p. 39. 
 
Chap. I.X.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 237 
 
 which the hearers belonged. But was not this the case here ? Was 
 it not highly honourable to the Corinthian Church that the two 
 great Apostles should be represented as having been at Corinth 
 together, before the most glorious moment of their lives arrived ; 
 that they had met here either by common agreement or by a higher 
 call, to set out from here on the journey to their martyrdom in the 
 capital of the world — to that death which was to reflect glory on their 
 whole lives ? And does not this interest to place the city of Corinth 
 on the same footing as the city of Eome, and to make the light pro- 
 ceeding from the two Apostles shed its glory on both cities alike, 
 appear very clearly in the Epistle of the Corinthian Bishop 1 
 " Thus have ye also (he writes to the Eoman Christians), by your 
 exhortation (the Epistle of the Eoman Bishop Soter to the Corin- 
 thians, which Dionysius was answering) ^ brought into union what 
 Peter and Paul founded " (rrjv airo IleTpov Kai IlavXov (pvrecav 
 yevrjOeiaav 'Pw/jialcov re Kai Kopivdocov <rvveK€paaaTe, i.e. ye have 
 renewed the connection which exists between the Churches founded 
 by the same Apostles — the Corinthian Church and the Eoman). 
 " For after the two Apostles had planted for us our Corinth " (et? 
 T^i; Tj/j^erepav KopivOov (ftvrevaavTe'i ?j/Aa?, founded our Corinthian 
 Church), "they proceeded to Italy, still teaching together, and 
 suffered martyrdom there at the same time." Does not a special 
 interest betray itself in this transformation of facts, where, contrary 
 to aU history, Peter is represented as the founder of the Corin- 
 thian Church as well as Paul ? 
 
 In the case of the third in our list of witnesses, Caius of Eome, 
 the possibility of a special interest is readily granted ; but we have 
 also to remember that he wrote in Eome itself, that he gives the 
 precise localities at the Vatican and on the road to Ostia, and that 
 there can scarcely be any error in this statement, because thousands 
 would at once have corrected him. Caius indeed speaks of the 
 rpd-jraia of the two Apostles in Eome, with an exact description of 
 the localities ; but what can the testimony of an author prove, who 
 is separated by the interval of nearly a century and a half from the 
 1 Cf. Eusebius, Eool. Hist., iv. 22. 
 
238 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part! 
 
 occurrence of those deaths of which the graves are to serve as evi- 
 dence ? His testimony is only of value as showing that what he 
 states about the two Apostles was told and believed in Rome at the 
 time when he wrote. To this extent, of course, it is not to be 
 thought that there can be any error in this statement ; thousands 
 would have immediately contradicted him, if he had stated, as the 
 current Eoman tradition, a thing of which no one in Rome knew 
 anything. Only let us not confound fact with legend. There can 
 be no doubt of the existence of the legend ; but that proves nothing 
 with regard to its historical basis. 
 
 Nor do the contents of the legend enhance its historical trust- 
 worthiness. Neander himself acknowledges that the later tradition 
 of the crucifixion of Peter, according to which his humility was so 
 great that he thought it too much honour to suffer in the same 
 manner as the Holy One had done, and prayed to be crucified with 
 his head downwards, bears the stamp of a later and more sickly 
 piety, rather than that of the simple apostolic humility.^ How 
 dearly bought is the theory of the Apostle Peter's presence in Rome, 
 which, for Protestants, is a purely historical question, and has no 
 further importance whatever, if it is only to be gained at the price 
 of sacrificing the genuine apostolic character, the humility that is 
 free from all display and vanity ! But if we only take our stand 
 on Tertullianis " adsequari passioni dominicse," what probabih'ty can 
 even this have, when we consider the circumstances under which 
 the Apostles are said to have died ?^ If the two Apostles were put 
 to death together in a Eoman persecution of the Christians, it is 
 not likely that there was any difference made between them in 
 respect to the manner of their execution, least of all such a differ- 
 ence as would so exactly have corresponded to the rivalry between 
 them which the legend everywhere suggests. Even the localities 
 of the two graves betray the same rival interest, since Paul, as a 
 more outward preacher of Christ, was allotted a grave on the road 
 
 1 Page 473 ; Bohn, 377. 
 
 2 If we believe TertuUian's " Petrus passioni dominicse adaequatur,'' we must 
 also believe his account of the martyrdom by oil of the Apostle John, which is 
 given in the same passage. 
 
Chap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTTBDOM. 239. 
 
 to Ostia, whilst Peter was glorified by the highest honour of a 
 martyr's grave given him in the famous theatre of the persecu- 
 tion in the garden of Nero. In the Epistle of Clement of Eome, 
 we hear merely of the glory of martyrdom, without particulars : 
 in the growth of the legend this has grown into a tradition 
 of a definite form, and with its local attachments and corrobora- 
 tions.^ 
 
 It has been necessary to enter so far into the bearings of the 
 legends affecting the two Apostles, in order to determine with some 
 accuracy what facts lie at their foundation. It appears from the 
 foregoing investigation, that the history of Paul is the only historical 
 foundation and point of departure from which the web of tradi- 
 tion has been spun in different directions. Everything which is 
 stated as an actual occurrence can be traced to Paul and not 
 to Peter. What is related of Peter is only the traditional reflex of 
 the historical reality which belongs to the life of Paul. Starting in 
 this way, the legend proceeded to take from Paul the whole actual 
 contents of his life and transfer it to Peter ; while what undeniably 
 belonged to Paul, and could not be robbed from him, was given 
 back to him in such a form as to appear to be merely the reflected 
 splendour shed on him by Peter's superlative glory. The legend 
 has thus made free use for its own purposes of the three historical 
 facts that had to he considered : the apostolic mission to the Gen- 
 tiles, the residence in Eome, and the martyrdom there. We have 
 thus to distinguish three stages in the formation of the legend. 
 First Paul is displaced from the position of Apostle to the Gentiles, 
 
 • The circus of Nero was at the foot of the Vatican. Tacitiis, AnnaL xiv. 14. 
 The gardens of Nero were in the same neighbourhood. Peter was said to have 
 been buried there, where a church was afterwards buUt to him. Compare Roma 
 antica di F. Nardini, Ed. iv. di A. Nibby, T. iv. Eom. 1819, page 358, where the 
 Italian antiquarian asks, forse Nerone immanissimo in far strage di Christiani us6 
 poi pieti in distruggere il suo circo per concedervi loro la sepoltura ? In the de- 
 scription of the city of Home by E. Plattner, C. Bunsen, etc., ii 1, 1832, page 52, 
 it is remarked on the words of Caius quoted above, 'Eym 8e ra rponaia, etc. ; 
 " When we look into this statement, we find that it aflSrms merely that the Apostle 
 sufiFered here in that persecution : the town where the martyrdom took place is 
 the Christian's trophy, even though not his tomb." But Eusebius evidently un- 
 derstands the words of Caius as referring to the graves of the Apostles, 
 
240 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. 
 
 which he was the first to occupy. Peter is set up as the true Gen^ 
 tile Apostle, and Paul takes the r^le of a false Apostle, preaching a 
 heathen doctrine. Scarcely had historical truth re- asserted itself 
 so far as to leave Paul in possession of his historical claims, and let 
 the two Apostles stand side by side in equal dignity, when another 
 inroad is made upon Paul's distinctions. There was much that no 
 one either could or would deny to him ; the foundation of the most 
 important churches, especially those at Corinth and at Eome, the 
 honour of martyrdom which he had met at Eome, and of having 
 been buried there. Yet in all these particulars he was made to yield 
 precedence to Peter. Who can fail to see in all this the reflex of 
 the varying forms of the relation in which the two great parties 
 stood over against each other in the apostolic and post-apostohc 
 ages ? It cannot be doubted that the Jewish-Christians saw in 
 the Apostle Paul only the opponent and enemy of the law, and of 
 Jewish- Christianity as it depended on the continuance of the law, 
 and that they sought to oppose him by all the means at their disposai 
 in all the Gentile-Christian Churches. But the greater the progress 
 was which Christianity made among the Gentiles through the 
 efforts of the Apostle Paul and his followers, the more certain did 
 it become that there must be many who would not be deterred 
 by all that the Jewish- Christians could do from maintaining the 
 principles of Pauline Christianity. Thus there arose a conflict of 
 interests and views which could not continue to exist in itp 
 harsher form, if there was ever to be such a thing as one Christian 
 Church. That this one Church did emerge is a historical fact, but 
 it is incorrect to suppose that it was Pauline Christianity alone 
 which everywhere won the victory over the Jewish- Christianity 
 which opposed it. Concessions were made on each side, and the 
 two parties melted gradually into each other : yet there are not 
 wanting traces that Judaism was still by far the stronger of the. 
 two. The concessions to which the Paulinists submitted, whether 
 of their own motion or from the pressure of circumstances, are to 
 be seen in works such as the Acts of the Apostles, and many of the 
 post-apostolic Epistles of the canon. Thus in the legend concerning 
 
Chap. IX.] HIS IMPBISONMJUNT AND MARTYRDOM. 241 
 
 the fate of the two Apostles, we have a picture of what they did 
 not live to see, not of them individually but of the parties in whom 
 their influence survived, with their respective fortunes. So con- 
 sidered, and taken for what they really are, these legends possess, 
 notwithstanding the unhistorical nature of their contents, a true 
 historical value. They are living pictures of the age, its motives 
 and its aims. They certainly show, in a striking manner, how 
 seriously history is changed, when not only is legend treated as 
 history, but when, in order to eke out the connection between 
 legends which refuse to fit into each other, new facts are invented 
 and added to the unhistorical facts already rashly received. Thus 
 the assumption of a second imprisonment of the Apostle Paul is one 
 which it would be well to get rid of once for all, that we may no 
 longer be confused and misled by it in our attempts to form a 
 clear conception of the relation which existed in that early time 
 when the Church was preparing to appear. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
SECOI^D PART. 
 
 THE EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
SECOND PART. 
 
 THE EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 INTEODUCTIOK 
 
 The foregoing inquiry shows what a false picture of the person- 
 ality of the Apostle Paul we should form if the Acts of the Apostles 
 were the only source we had to draw from. The Epistles of the 
 Apostle are thus the only authentic documents for the history of 
 his apostolic labours, and of the entire relation in which he stood 
 to his age ; and in proportion as the spirit that breathes through 
 them is great and original, we see that they present the truest and 
 most living mirror of what that spirit was. The deeper we go in 
 the study of the Epistles the richer and the more peculiar do we 
 find that life to be which the Pauline spirit developed. Yet on 
 this ground also we find that double of the Apostle making 
 his appearance at his side, who in the Acts completely sup- 
 planted him. That aU these thirteen Pauline Epistles, which 
 Christian antiquity unanimously recognised, and handed down as 
 the Epistles of the Apostle, cannot make equal claim to authen- 
 ticity, and that several of them labour under an overwhelming 
 suspicion of unauthenticity, is a result of recent criticism, which is 
 steadily making its way to general acceptance. In view of the 
 present state of the criticism of the subject, it cannot be thought 
 
246 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part 
 
 premature to sum up the investigations that have been made with 
 regard to the various Epistles, in a classification similar to that in 
 which Eusebius, in his classical passage on the canon, recorded his 
 verdict on the various writings which claimed to be admitted to 
 it, as the historical evidence before him seemed to require. The 
 Pauline Epistles fall into the two classes of Homologoumena and 
 Antilegomena. 
 
 In the Homologoumena there can only be reckoned the four 
 great Epistles of the Apostle, which take precedence of the rest in 
 every respect, namely, the Epistle to the Galatians, the two 
 Epistles to the Corinthians, and the Epistle to the Eomans. There 
 has never been the slightest suspicion of unauthenticity cast on 
 these four Epistles, and they bear so incontestably the character 
 of PauHne originality, that there is no conceivable ground for the 
 assertion of critical doubts in their case. All the rest of the 
 Epistles, which are commonly ascribed to the Apostle, belong to 
 the class of Antilegomena ; but this does not amount to a positive 
 assertion that they are spurious, any more than Eusebius meant 
 this by his use of the phrase ; it is simply a statement of the fact 
 that their genuineness has been and may be called in question, — 
 since among all these lesser Pauline Epistles there is not a single 
 one against which, from the standpoint of the four chief Epistles, 
 some objection or other may not be raised. In their entire nature 
 they are so essentially different from the four first Epistles, that 
 even if they be considered as Pauline, they can only form a second 
 class of Epistles of the Apostle. In fact they profess for the most 
 part to have been composed at a later period of his apostohc 
 career. Eusebius makes a further division of his Antilegomena, 
 and selects from that class a certain number of Notha, the doubt 
 regarding which amounts to more than merely a suspense of judg- 
 ment, and passes into an overwhelming probability of actual 
 spuriousness. Among these deutero-Pauline Epistles there are 
 not wanting some, the verdict of criticism on which inclines more 
 and more to this side. In my opinion, and in that of other critics, 
 the so-called Pastoral Epistles must be placed in this subdivision 
 
n.] INTRODUCTION. 247 
 
 of the Pauline Antilegomena. Thus we have three classes of 
 Pauline Epistles. This classification can also appeal to an ancient 
 authority. The Marcionite Canon, -whose ' Airoa-To\o<; is the most 
 ancient collection of Pauline Epistles known to us, does not con- 
 tain the generally received thirteen Epistles of the Apostle, but 
 only ten; the three Pastoral Epistles being excluded. Eor the 
 Canon of Marcion then, the Pastoral Epistles are a class by them- 
 selves ; so much is certain, and the distinction that was drawn 
 was probably the reason for their being omitted. If they were 
 absent because they were not in existence at the time, of course 
 they would not be afterwards included as Notha in a collection 
 which was to contain only genuine Pauline Epistles. If they were 
 in existence at the time, but unknown to Marcion (and this is 
 scarcely credible if they had been long current as genuine Pauline 
 Epistles), their relation to this Canon remains the same ; they were 
 not included because they were not known as Pauline writings. 
 But if the compiler of the Marcionite Canon knew of their exist- 
 ence when he excluded them, then they were excluded as being 
 writings which were held by the compiler of this Canon not to be 
 Pauline; and by this exclusion the verdict was pronounced on 
 them that even if not notoriously dating from a later period, they 
 were at least wanting in the genuine Pauline character, and could 
 not be considered as Pauline writings. From the standpoint of 
 the Marcionite Canon, these Epistles must in any case be con- 
 sidered as composing the last class of the Epistles generally as- 
 cribed to the Apostle Paul. If we proceed from the Epistles which 
 were wanting in that Canon to those which it contained, we find 
 two classes which agree with the above classification, namely, a 
 series of Pauline Epistles of the first order, and another of the 
 second order. According to Epiphanius (Heer. 42. 9.), the Canon 
 of Marcion arranged the Pauline Epistles in the following order :— 
 Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Komans, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 
 Ephesians (Marcion's title to this Epistle, however, was "To the 
 Laodiceans"), Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians. In this 
 arrangement of the Pauline Epistles it is usual to consider little 
 
248 LIFH AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part 
 
 more than the prominence given to the Epistle to the Galatians, 
 the reason of which is held to be the importance which this 
 Epistle must have held in the teachings of so decided an anti- 
 Judaistic Paulinist as Marcion. But if this be so, we should expect 
 to find the rest of the Epistles arranged from the point of view of 
 their greater or less importance with regard to the teachings of 
 Marcion, and we fail to understand why the two Epistles to the 
 Corinthians should precede that to the Eomans, and still less why 
 the rest should follow precisely in the order they do. If we assume 
 that the arrangement follows the order of time in which the 
 Epistles were held to have been written, the two Epistles to the 
 Thessalonians seem to be out of place, as in this case they ought 
 not to come just after the Epistle to the Eomans, but ought to 
 come first of all, as they were the first written. And yet we must 
 recognise a certaia reference to the order of time in the fact that 
 the Epistles to the Thessalonians follow immediately the four 
 principal Epistles. If we consider all these different points, we 
 can only explain the Marcionite Canon by the supposition that it 
 consists of two separate collections. The first collection is com- 
 posed of four Epistles ; Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Eomans, 
 which could only be so placed by following a chronological order. 
 The second collection must also have been arranged chronologi- 
 cally — it would be hard to explain on any other theory how it 
 commenced with 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and why the Epistle to 
 the Philippians follows that to Philemon. Whatever may be the 
 origin and history of these two collections, it must certainly be 
 considered a very remarkable feature of this Canon, that in it we 
 find all those lesser Pauline Epistles placed in a second series, 
 which in many respects differ so much from the principal Epistles 
 as to raise grave doubts about their origin ; and the supposition 
 very naturally presents itself, that if weighty reasons should be 
 forthcoming against their unauthenticity, the secondary position of 
 these collected Epistles may be due to the fact that they appeared 
 as deutero-Pauline writings, after the collection of genuine Pauline 
 Epistles had been closed. As they professed to be Pauline Epistles, 
 
II-] INTBODUOTION. 249 
 
 they were indeed added to the original genuine Epistles of the 
 Apostle ; but the manner in which they are arranged along with 
 the latter betrays their later origin, and it is just as natural that they 
 should be distinguished from the others as being later Epistles, 
 although stiU held as Pauline, as it is natural that the Pastoral 
 Epistles which were opposed to the Marcionite teaching, and so 
 must have followed it in point of time, should be entirely wanting 
 in that Canon. Marcion is a name of critical importance in the 
 history of Pauline Christianity : to him Paulinism was the only 
 true and genuine Christianity, and this fact entitles him to a con- 
 sideration which has hitherto been denied to him, the so-called 
 heretic. As we have seen, he provides us with a piece of informa- 
 tion which the criticism of the Pauline Epistles cannot, at the 
 stage it has now reached, afford to disregard.^ 
 
 1 As the weight of the reasons which are adduced against the authentic origin 
 and character of the lesser Epistles, as compared with the four Epistles which 
 stand first, will not, according to all probability, be diminished by the further 
 free exercise of criticism, but, on the contrary, rather strengthened, it is even at 
 this stage the simplest and most natural way of proceeding, to divide the Epistles 
 standing in the Canon, under the name of the Apostle, into authentic and un- 
 authentic, Pauline and pseudo-Pauline, and to arrange the later ones according to 
 their probable chronological order. 
 
THE FIKST CLASS OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 THE GENUINE EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLE. 
 
 CHAPTEE L 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 It is generally assumed that the Galatian Churches (at eKKXrj- 
 (TLM rri'^ TaXaTM';, Gal. i. 2) were founded by Paul himseK. 
 The passages i. 8, iv. 13, 19, in which the Apostle speaks of his 
 preaching the Gospel among the Galatians, would seem to leave 
 little doubt on this point, but the Acts of the Apostles gives us 
 no details about the time and occasion. If we try to find a place 
 for the founding of these churches in the Acts, we are shut up to 
 the second journey of the Apostle (xvi. 6, sq) as he visited 
 Galatia at that time, and on the third journey which led him 
 to Galatia again, he only "confirmed" the disciples who were 
 already there (Acts xviii. 23). But it is remarkable that the 
 author of the Acts says nothing at xvi. 6 of the founding of a 
 Christian Church, and represents the Apostle as merely travelling 
 through Phrygia and Galatia, and, it is suggested, passing through 
 these countries rapidly, so as to preclude the idea of any lengthened 
 stay. This is certainly the conclusion to which we are led by the 
 Acts of the Apostles. With regard to the members of this church, 
 
Chap; I.] TEE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 251 
 
 the general opinion is that they consisted partly of Jewish and 
 partly of Gentile Christians. That there were Jewish Christians 
 among them is thought to be likely in itself, as many Jews lived 
 in Asia Minor generally, and therefore also in Galatia (compare 
 1 Peter i. 1). It is also thought that the Apostle would not have 
 spoken of the Law and of the Old Testament as he does in Gala- 
 tians iii. 2, 13, iv. 5, 31, if there had not been Jews among the 
 readers of his Epistle. This last consideration, however, does 
 not carry much weight, as a knowledge of the Old Testament 
 might be presupposed on the part of Gentiles who were inclined 
 either to Judaism or Christianity. It thus remains doubtful 
 whether there were any Jewish Christians in the Galatian Churches, 
 and although this is not in itself improbable, yet it cannot be 
 taken as certain, as the Epistle itself shows undeniably in many 
 places (compare iv. 8, v. 2, vi. 1 2) that the Apostle was addressing 
 Gentile Christians. 
 
 What led the Apostle to write this Epistle to the Galatian 
 Churches we learn very clearly from the Epistle itself. The Gala- 
 tian Christians were very near falling away from the Gospel as it 
 had been preached to them by the Apostle (i. 6, iii. 1, 3, iv. 9, sq., 
 21, V. 2, sq., 7). This was due to the influence of strange teachers 
 who had visited these churches after the Apostle, and destroyed 
 the confidence of the Galatian Christians in their newly acquired 
 Christianity by suggesting that they could not be saved by a 
 doctrine like that of the Apostle Paul. These teachers represented 
 to them that, as a first step to the Christian salvation, they must 
 submit to circumcision (v. 2, 1 1). Here we first meet with those 
 Judaising opponents with whom the Apostle had to maintain so 
 severe a struggle in the churches which he founded, and they 
 appear here quite in the harsh and uncompromising Judaistic 
 character which marks them as opponents of Pauline Chris- 
 tianity. Their opposition to the apostolic work of the Apostle 
 Paul did not indeed go so far as to deny that the Gentiles were 
 called to partake in the Messianic salvation ; in this respect the 
 limits of Judaism are for them also broken through, but they 
 
252 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part 11. 
 
 were the more zealous to assert the principle that in this wider 
 sphere salvation could only be obtained in the form of Judaism. 
 The absolute right of Judaism could not be relinquished; the 
 GentUes must acknowledge that right. It was therefore simply 
 impossible that a man could be saved by Christianity unless he pro- 
 fessed Judaism, and submitted to everything that Judaism prescribed 
 as a condition of salvation. Whilst they asserted this principle in 
 every country alike, they made it their special task to repair the 
 injury which the Apostle Paul had done; and where he had preached 
 his gospel of freedom from the law, they insisted energetically on 
 the necessity of observance of the law ; they sought, in fact, rather to 
 Judaise than to Christianise the Gentiles whom Paul had converted. 
 The Apostle Paul having, according to their views, played the part of 
 an innovator and revolutionary, they desired to interpose with their 
 conservative principles to repair the evil, and to found the new 
 ideas and doctrines in which the salvation of mankind was com- 
 prised entirely on the positive foundation of Judaism. It lay in ' 
 the very nature of the case that they should appear as opponents 
 of the Apostle Paul, and that wherever they came in contact with 
 him, they should present the most obstinate and thoroughgoing 
 opposition to him; but this opposition does not warrant us to 
 regard them as mere heretics, impostors, and corrupters — persons 
 who from bad motives made it their business to interfere eveiy- 
 where with the beneficent work of the Apostle, and introduce 
 hindrance and confusion where it had been begun. It is true 
 that the Apostle Paul himself thus represents them, but we must 
 not forget that party is here opposed to party, and each side takes 
 up the question and discusses it from a party point of view. We 
 have no reason for assuming that these opponents of the Apostle 
 were not thoroughly in earnest in the views and principles of 
 which they were the champions, or that they did not act on con- 
 viction in what we see them to have done; in fact, the whole 
 impression which they make on us is that they were men so 
 firmly wedded to the opinions and principles for which they con- 
 tended, that they could not separate themselves from them or 
 
Chap. I.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 253 
 
 raise themselves above them. In one word, they were Jews or 
 Jewish Christians of the genuine old stamp, who could so little 
 imderstand the more liberal atmosphere of Pauline Christianity 
 that they would have thought the very ground of their existence 
 was cut from under them if Judaism were no longer to have its 
 absolute power and importance. We certainly do not deny that 
 they permitted themselves to employ the most unjust accusations 
 and most malicious calumnies against the Apostle Paul ; these 
 are never wanting in any party struggle ; but if we look steadily 
 and fairly at the main facts of the case, we must allow so much 
 to the Apostle's opponents, that the chief reason why their Judaistic 
 position was so narrow was just their natural incapacity to raise 
 themselves from a lower state of religious consciousness to a higher 
 and freer one. 
 
 This determines the point of view from which this Epistle of 
 the Apostle as a whole is to be considered. It takes us to the 
 very ferment of the strife between Judaism and Christianity, at 
 the point when it had just come in sight of its critical issue ; to the 
 debate of the momentous question whether there was to be a Chris- 
 tianity free from Judaism and essentially different from it, or 
 whether Christianity was to exist merely as a form of Judaism, was 
 to be, that is to say, nothing but Judaism modified and extended. 
 But all that Christianity was or was yet to become as a thing 
 radically different from Judaism had been first brought to historical 
 reality by the Apostle Paul, and had no existence yet apart from 
 his person ; the peculiar theme of the Epistle is the vindication of 
 Pauliae Christianity, which was necessarily at the same time the 
 personal vindication of the Apostle. In this conflict with Judaism 
 and its champions he found himself obUged to enter into a defence 
 of his position as an Apostle; and he could only do this by 
 appealing to his own immediate Apostolic consciousness. Thus 
 the first point that he takes up is the proof of his immediate 
 apostolic calling, or his peculiar standpoint, showing that he had 
 not arrived at this standpoint by means of any communication 
 from man, but entirely by means of an immediate act of his own 
 
254 LIFE AND WORK OF FAUL. [Part II. 
 
 self- consciousness, by which he became aware of his inner divine 
 call, i. 6-16. This independence of the principle on which his 
 apostolic call rested he maintains as against the elder Apostles — 
 first, negatively, inasmuch as he became an Apostle of Christ quite 
 independently of them, and what he was as an Apostle he was in 
 the fullest sense before he ever came in contact with them at all, 
 i. 17, 18; and then, positively, inasmuch as when he did come in 
 contact with them he not only surrendered nothing of his principle 
 and held his own against them, but was able to win for it the most 
 unequivocal and triumphant recognition. This was done in three 
 different particulars, forming a sort of ascending scale, in which 
 he maintained his principle against them in a manner perfectly 
 convincing, and even went so far as to carry it out in acts to 
 which it applied. For, in the first place, at the time of his 
 journey to Jerusalem, no one had anything to allege against his 
 peculiar standpoint, i. 18, 19 ; in the second place, when matters 
 came to an open difference, he put the case before them in such a 
 way that they were obliged to recognise his co-ordinate sphere of 
 apostolic activity, ii. 1-10; and, in the third place, when Peter 
 in Antioch acted in disregard of the principles which had formerly 
 been acknowledged, he was so distinctly in the ^^Tong, that he had 
 to submit to be rebuked, ii. 11, sq. The personal vindication 
 here passes over naturally to the dogmatic, to the proof of the 
 great proposition that the principle of the justification which alone 
 brings salvation to man lies only in faith in Christ, and not in the 
 works of the law. In proof of this proposition it is first alleged 
 that it is an immediate affirmation of the Christian consciousness, 
 iii. 1-5; and then that it underlies the whole of the Old Testa- 
 ment, inasmuch as the substance of what the Old Testament con- 
 tains is the promise given to Abraham, to which the law was 
 added as in fact merely an accident, iii. 6-18. Thereupon follows 
 a further discussion of the nature of the law, in which the sub- 
 ordinate relation of the law to the promise is further insisted on, 
 together with the merely relative importance which the law 
 possesses in its position between the promise and faith as a merely 
 
Chap. I.] THE EPISTLE TO THE QALATIANS. 255 
 
 mediating element, though by no means an unimportant one. 
 The Apostle's argument then moves forward in the antitheses of 
 preparation and fulfilment, the carnal and the spiritual minds, 
 the servitude of the " heir as long as he is a child," and his freedom 
 when he becomes of age. Christianity is the absolute religion, 
 the religion of the spirit and of freedom, with regard to which 
 Judaism belongs to an inferior standpoint, from which it must be 
 classed with heathenism under the daOev^ koL -n-Taxa cnoixela 
 Tov Koa/Mov. The proof of this is given (1.) partly objectively 
 from the inner nature of Christianity as compared with the nature 
 of Judaism, partly subjectively from the Christian's own experi- 
 ence of the life of spirit and freedom, iv. 1-11 (what next follows, 
 iv. 12-20, is an expression of the Apostle's sorrow and displeasure, 
 at the falling away of the Galatians) ; (2.) from the Old Testament, 
 through an allegorical use of the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and 
 Ishmael, who hold to each other the relation of freedom and 
 bondage. The hortatory and practical part of the Epistle contains 
 (1.) an exhortation to perseverance in the freedom of the spirit, by 
 means of the true faith, and a warning against relapse into Juda- 
 ism, V. 1-12 ; (2.) a description of that moral conduct by which 
 the true freedom and the life of the spirit approve themselves, and 
 a warning against the abuse of freedom. This moral conduct is 
 considered generally, v. 13-15, and in particular with reference to 
 the circumstances of the Galatians, v, 26-vi. 10. Finally, in vi. 
 11-18, we have the conclusion of the Epistle, consisting of a brief 
 emphatic summary of what had been said before, with a benedic- 
 tion. The Epistle may accordingly be divided into three parts : 
 the first, personal and apologetic ; the second, dogmatic ; and the 
 third, practical. All three are intimately interwoven with each 
 other. The dogmatic part of the Epistle proceeds, on the one hand, 
 on the vindication that has been given of the writer's apostolic 
 authority, and on the other, it passes naturally over to the practical 
 part, inasmuch as the vo/u.o'; is one of the chief ideas of the dogmatic 
 part. It was necessary to show that freedom from the law does not 
 by any means do away with the obligations of moral conduct. 
 
256 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 The composition of this Epistle is placed by many at a very early, 
 and by others at a much later date. The general opinion is that it 
 was written soon after the Apostle's second journey, Acts xviiL 2, 3 ; 
 and Eiickert, Credner, and others have sought to find circum- 
 stantial evidence for this opinion in combinations of a very subjec- 
 tive kind. To give the Epistle its proper place in the chronology 
 of the Pauline Epistles, we need only consider its relation to the 
 two Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Epistle to the Romans. 
 In this respect we have certainly an important piece of evidence in 
 the opponents with whom the Apostle had to contend among the 
 Galatians as well as among the Corinthians. The Judaising op- 
 ponents are the same ; but there can be little doubt, from the manner 
 in which the Apostle attacks them in the Galatian Epistle, that this 
 is the first brunt of the conflict. What is discussed in this Epistle 
 is the very first question that would be raised ; the Apostle finds it 
 necessary to give an account, first of all, of how he came to his 
 apostolic office, and he speaks of it in a manner which he could 
 not have employed if he had ever come in contact with these 
 opponents in the same way before. He wants to get to the very 
 root of the matter with them ; he sets to work in a spirit which 
 we do not find except when opposition has for the first time revealed 
 to a man the full importance of the principle on the assertion of 
 which the whole work of his life depends. This same impression 
 of a party contest only just arisen, in which each party puts forth all 
 its power to attain its one definite object, is shown also in the con- 
 duct of the opposition. Circumcision, the most direct and unmis- 
 takable recognition of the value of the Mosaic law, is the point 
 at issue. It is certainly remarkable that in the Epistles to the 
 Corinthians there is no longer any mention of this subject. The 
 opponents against whom the Apostle contends are the same Juda- 
 ising propagandists ; but the relations of parties, which in the 
 Galatian Epistle are quite simple and undisguised, have now under- 
 gone some modification, and the conflict has entered on another 
 stage. On this account the Epistle to the Galatians must be placed 
 before the three other Epistles, and this is the place it holds in the 
 
Chap. I.] THE EPISTLE TO THE QALATIANS. 257 
 
 Marcionite Canon. In regard to the opponents with whom the 
 Apostle had to contend, it is closely related to the two Epistles to 
 the Corinthians ; in regard to its dogmatic contents, it is closely con- 
 nected with the Epistle to the Eomans. But here also the relation 
 is a perfectly analogous one. The ideas which appear in the Epistle 
 to the Eomans as the complete system of Pauline doctrine, worked 
 out in all its particulars, appear in the Galatian Epistle in their first 
 outlines, yet distinctly and clearly traced. We can thus start from 
 this Epistle to trace the development of the Pauline doctrinal 
 system through the various stages at which we meet it in the four 
 great Epistles. It has already been shown in our former inquiry, 
 for which the Epistle to the Galatians was the chief authority, what 
 importance this Epistle possessed as an historical document. It 
 gives us what knowledge we have of the original relation in which 
 our Apostle stood to the other Apostles, and thus shows us the pro- 
 cess of development by which the struggle with Judaism led to a 
 more distinct perception and appreciation of the essential principle 
 of Christianity. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
CHAPTEE II. 
 
 THE TM'O EPISTLES TO THE COKINTHIANS. 
 
 These two Epistles stand in chronological order between the 
 Epistle to the Galatians on the one hand, and the Epistle to the 
 Eomans on the other, and they thus introduce us to the very- 
 centre of the Apostle's busy and many-sided activity as the 
 founder of Gentile Christian churches. That which is presented 
 in its simplest elements in the Epistle to the Galatians, and which 
 in the Epistle to the Eomans passes over to the abstract sphere 
 of dogmatic controversy, opens out in the Epistles to the Corin- 
 thians into the fuU reality of concrete life, with all the complicated 
 relations which must have existed in a Christian Church of the 
 earliest period. The Corinthian Church was the peculiar creation 
 of the Apostle ; it was, as he himself says (1 Cor. iv. 15), a chUd 
 begotten by him and lovingly fostered, but such a child also as 
 needed, in every way, his fatherly correction and educating care. 
 With no other church did he stand in so close and confidential a 
 relation ; to none did he address so many and such important 
 Epistles ; in none did he undergo so many experiences of different 
 kinds ; above all, in none had he such a difficult and important 
 problem to solve. All this arose naturally from the fact that the 
 Corinthian Church was the first Christian Church which existed on 
 the classic ground of ancient Greece. How could the Greek spirit 
 disown its original nature, even when new-born into Christianity ? 
 There is nothing more natural than that Christianity should break 
 out into phenomena of a peculiar kind at its first application to a 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 259 
 
 people like the Greeks, whose activity and versatility of mind, and 
 whose political party spirit had a new theatre before them, in the 
 newly-opened sphere of action. Especially must this have been the 
 case in a city like Corinth, where Greek culture and Greek sensuality 
 were so intimately allied with each other. Add to this, what is of 
 peculiar importance in considering the personal relation of the 
 Apostle to the Corinthian Church, and what gave him so many an 
 opportunity of showing us the underlying, purely human element of 
 his many-sided character, namely, that the same Judaising opponents, 
 with whom we are already acquainted, introduced a new and most 
 disturbing element into the life of this Greek Christian Church, 
 when stin in the first stage of its development. But these opponents 
 now appear in a more polished and refined guise ; they have less 
 of the Jewish national tone ; they seem to have perceived that 
 they must take up a different line in this altogether Greek Church 
 from that which they had taken up in the churches of Asia 
 Minor : or it may be that their religious views had made some pro- 
 gress, and that they had become less rigid. Their opposition to 
 Pauline Christianity no longer proceeds from the purely Jewish 
 standpoint, where circumcision is the great thing to be insisted on : 
 it has become Christian, and the main point urged is the true 
 Christian notion of apostolic authority ; but it has gained in inten- 
 sity by applying itself to this one principle, and is all the more 
 personally dangerous to the Apostle. 
 
 In the first Epistle, the Apostle takes up a series of subjects 
 which at that early period had a special interest for a church still 
 in its infancy. The chief matter with which he was concerned 
 was the party spirit which had sprung up in the Corinthian Church 
 through the influence of the Judaising opponents. The Church 
 had split into several parties, which were called by names denoting 
 their several tendencies, i. 12. The names Paul, ApoUos, Cephas, 
 and Christ denote, as it seems, so many different parties. The party 
 of Paul is, very naturally, placed first. The Corinthians had not 
 fallen away from the Apostle, they had only divided themselves 
 into parties ; and those members of the Church who had remained 
 
260 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part II. 
 
 most faithful to the Apostle still continued to form, as we see from 
 both the Epistles, the overwhelming majority. Nor can we be sur- 
 prised that when parties were formed in Corinth, one of these should 
 be called by the name of Apollos. ApoUos had immediately suc- 
 ceeded the Apostle at Corinth as his lieutenant in the cause of the 
 Gospel, and if, as is related of him, Acts xviii. 24, he had attained 
 great eminence in Alexandrine culture and knowledge of the 
 Scriptures, it may easily be understood how there might be many 
 persons in Corinth, who, owing to the attractiveness of his dis- 
 courses for the Greek mind, became so fond of him that they even 
 preferred him in some measure to the Apostle Paul. But how was 
 it that the favourable reception which other teachers, like-minded 
 with himself, met with from a portion of the Church, appears to the 
 Apostle to indicate such a dangerous party spirit, and one so earnestly 
 to be opposed? There must be something more in the circumstances 
 of the Church to explain how this predilection for Apollos could 
 have been considered by the Apostle as a subject for anxiety. The 
 true cause of division and schism is to be sought in the names of 
 the other two parties. The name of Peter naturally suggests an 
 opposition to Paul. As far as we know, Peter himself had never 
 been at Corinth ; but under the authority of his name a Jewish- 
 Christian element had been introduced into a Church which, there 
 can be no doubt, consisted almost entirely of Gentile Christians. In 
 this sense only can the Apostle affix the name of Cephas or Peter to 
 one of these parties. We do not find, however, what we might have 
 expected, that the Apostle addresses himself to a confutation of the 
 principles promulgated by Judaising opponents : the Epistles con- 
 tain nothing of this kind. The Jewish doctrines of the absolute 
 value of the Mosaic law, and the necessity of its observance for 
 salvation, are nowhere combated in these Epistles, as they are in 
 the Epistles to the Galatians and the Romans ; there is no mention 
 made of the law and its place in Christian doctrine. Throughout 
 the whole of both the Epistles to the Corinthians we look in vain 
 for any trace to show that that party still existed : it is only iu 
 the last chapters of the second Epistle that we obtain clear infor- 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 261 
 
 mation that the old dispute is by no means at rest. At the close 
 of the Epistle (xi. 22) the Apostle denounces the Judaism of his 
 opponents so unreservedly, and describes them so bitterly as false 
 teachers of Christianity, vain of their privilege of Jewish birth, 
 that we easily understand the reason of his polemic against them ; 
 but we are no nearer to the desired information about their prin- 
 ciples. The Judaism of his opponents thus appears here in a new 
 form, and we are led to ask whether the fourth party named by the 
 Apostle, the party of Christ, wiU not throw some light on these 
 party relations. Here, however, we come to a most difficult ques- 
 tion, which we must endeavour as far as possible to answer if we 
 are to reach any clear understanding of the circumstances of the 
 Corinthian Church, and the position of the Apostle in it. 
 
 Who were ol rov XpicTTovl^ Amongst the modern commen- 
 tators and critics who have directed their attention to this question, 
 Storr and Eichhorn have advanced theories which are opposed to 
 each other to this extent, that the one adheres too closely to one 
 special point, and the other loses itself in generalities ; though in 
 this they are agreed, that they neither found on any statement of 
 the Epistles, nor succeed in making the subject clear. According 
 to Storr,^ ol Tov Xpiarov were those members of the Corinthian 
 Church who had made the Apostle James the chief of their party 
 as being the dSe\<f}o<; Kvpiov, in order that through this outward 
 relationship of the head of their sect to Jesus they might claim for 
 it a precedence which would exalt it over even the Petrine party. 
 This would explain the Apostle's expression, Xpicnov Kara <rapKa 
 yivaxTKetv, 2 Cor. v. 13 ; it would then be a reference to this carnal 
 
 1 I first discussed this question in a treatise in the TUbinger Zeitschr. fur 
 Theologie, 1831, pt. 4, p. 61, Die Christus-partei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, 
 der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinisohen Christenthums, der Apostel PetruB 
 ia Rom. 
 
 2 NotitisB historicffl epistolarum Pauli ad Corinthios, interpretationi servientes. 
 Tuh. 1758, p. 14. Opusc. acad. vol. ii. p. 246. The same opinion is supported 
 by Flatt, Vorlesungen ilber die beiden Brief e Pauli an die Cor., p. 15 ; by 
 Bertholdt, Hist. Krit. Einl., p. 339 ; by Hug, Einleitung in die Sehriften des 
 N. T., 3d ed., p. 360; and by Heidenreich, Comment, in 1 Corinth., vol. i., 
 1825, p. 31. 
 
262 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Pabt II. 
 
 mode of establishing relations with Christ ; but if Storr cannot 
 bring forward anything else in support of his theory than that the 
 Apostle speaks of the " brethren of the Lord," 1 Cor. ix. 5, and 
 mentions James in connection with Peter, xv. 7, what is the value of 
 such an hypothesis ? According to Eichhorn,^ ol tov XpiaToii were 
 the neutrals who differed from the other conflicting parties in 
 asserting that they did not attach themselves to Paul, nor to Apollos, 
 nor to Peter, but only to Christ. That these neutrals might not 
 be entirely colourless, Pott^ pressed into the service of Eichhom's 
 view the passage 1 Cor. iii. 22, where Paul, after denouncing the 
 schisms in the Corinthian Church, is held to state his own position 
 in the words irdvTa i^iaiv ea-rw, elre UavXo^, etre AttoWw;, eiTe 
 Kr](pa'i, irdvTa vfj^wv ecTTtv vfxel'; Be XpiaTov, the views and doc- 
 trine of the Xpia-rox) ovts^ being those which the Apostle himself 
 approved of. "These same roii Xpiarov are meant in i. 12. In 
 exhorting the Corinthians, 1 Cor. iii. 22, tov Xpiarov elvai, the 
 Apostle, it is held, wished to direct the adherents of the sects to that 
 teaching of the true teachers, to which ol tov Xpiarov already 
 adhered. The source from which they derived their Christian doc- 
 trine was just the teaching of Paul, Apollos, and Peter; but in 
 order to avoid any appearance of sectarianism, they did not 
 call themselves by the name of the teacher who first enunciated 
 the principle rov elvai Xpiarov, but simply called themselves rov 
 Xpiarov." Both the passages quoted do indeed speak of a Xpiarov 
 elvai, but, as a more correct comparison will easily show us, in two 
 very different senses. In the passage i. 12, the words eyw Be 
 Xpiarov serve to denote a sect, just as the three clauses immedi- 
 ately preceding them denote so many other sects. The words must 
 be taken as describing those who belonged to the so-caUed Christ- 
 party ; but the Apostle cannot be held to be referring to the divine 
 unity that is found in Christ, and lies beyond all the sectarian 
 divisions and distinctions, a thing greater than them all. If ol 
 Xpiarov were the neutrals, the neutrals themselves were nothing 
 
 1 Einleitung in das N. T. vol. iii. p. 107. 
 
 2 Epist. Pauli ad Cor. Partio. 1, 1826. Proleg. p. 31. 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 2G3 
 
 but a sect, as Neander also supposes them to have been.^ "They 
 may indeed have maintained, in a false sense, that they were 
 Christ's men ; very probably the conceit of the Corinthians caused 
 some to come forward in these disputes as to whether the teaching 
 of Paul, or of Peter, or of Apollos, were the true and perfect doc- 
 trine, who asserted that they understood Christianity better than 
 Paul, or Peter, or Apollos. From verbal or written tradition, which 
 they interpreted to suit their own foregone theories and opinions, 
 they made a Christ and a Christianity for themselves. In their 
 arrogant zeal for freedom they declared themselves to be indepen- 
 dent of the authority of the chosen and inspired witnesses of the 
 Gospel, and professed to have as perfect a system of doctrine as they 
 had. In their presumption they caUed themselves disciples of 
 Christ as a distinction from all others, as if they alone had a good 
 title to the name." This view can only be regarded as a modifica- 
 tion of that of Eichhorn. What, after all this, are we to consider 
 the peculiar characteristics of this so-called party of Christ to have 
 been ? If they wished to set up a Christ and a Christianity of 
 their own in opposition to the chiefs of the other sects, to whose 
 authority the adherents of those sects appealed,- their relation to 
 Christ must have been brought about in some way similar to that 
 which had been the case with the other sects, and we cannot see if 
 they claimed to have a more perfect doctrine than others and to 
 know Christianity better than Paul, Apollos, and Peter, how they 
 could have thought to justify their claim to this distinction on a.ny 
 higher grounds than were open to all the sects alike. Therefore 
 either ol XpverTov were not a sect to be classed with the other sects 
 which are mentioned along with them, or they did form a sect, but 
 one of whose tendency and peculiar position none of the views 
 hitherto advanced enables us to form any satisfactory conception. 
 
 Having arrived at this point, it seems to me that in making our 
 next step we must take into account the suggestion made by J. E. 
 
 1 Kleine Gelegenheitsohriften praktisch-cliristliclien, vornehmlioli exegetischen 
 und hiatorisohen Inhalts, 3d. ed., Berlin, 1829, p. 68. Der Apostel Paulus und 
 die Gemeinde zu Korinth. 
 
264 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part il. 
 
 Chr. Schmidt, in a treatise on 1 Cor. i. 1 2, namely, that there were 
 really but two parties, one that of Paul and ApoUos, while the 
 Petrinists and Christ-ians, as Schmidt expresses it, also formed one 
 party. In view of the well-known relation in which Paul and 
 Peter, one the Apostle to the Gentiles, the other to the Jews, reaUy 
 stood towards each other, or at least the relation in which they 
 were thought to stand towards each other by the chief parties of 
 the early Christian Church, there can be no doubt that the chief 
 difference lay between the two sects which called themselves after 
 Paul and Cephas. It follows from this that the differences which 
 gave rise to the existence of the other two parties, that of ApoUos 
 and that of Christ, were much less important ; and the relation of 
 the party of Paul to that of ApoUos confirms us in this opinion. 
 We see from many passages that Paul identified ApoUos completely 
 with himself, and considered him as a true fellow- worker with 
 himself in the preaching of the Gospel ; and we find nothing in the 
 contents of either of these Epistles of the Apostle which would 
 lead us to suppose that there was any important difference between 
 them. I do not mean to deny, what is generally assumed, that in 
 the passage in which he speaks of the distinction between the (ro(f>ia 
 Koa-fiov and the a-o^ia Geov, the Apostle had the party of ApoUos 
 in view ; but, on the other hand, it must be admitted that the 
 attitude here described must have been more or less the ruling one 
 in the Corinthian Church as a whole. The Apostle represents this 
 taste for the aoj)la tov Koa-fiov, this want of faculty to penetrate to 
 the inner regions of the Christian life, as a quality characteristic of 
 the Corinthians as a whole at the stage of spiritual Ufe which 
 they had then reached. The greater prevalence of this spirit among 
 them may have been what distinguished the party of ApoUos from 
 that of Paul, and this may have shown itself in attaching more 
 value to the graces of deUvery than to the nature of the doctrine 
 preached. It may also have been that the adherents of these parties 
 placed the teachers under whose names they enroUed themselves in 
 a relation to each other which they themselves disclaimed. At all 
 events the difference cannot have been so essential or so connected 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 265 
 
 witli doctrine as to prevent the two parties from being one party 
 as against the party of Peter. It is also very conceivable that the 
 relation of the Cephas-party and the Christ-party to each other was 
 of a similar nature. Even if these two parties should be considered 
 as in the main one and the same party, this would not prevent us 
 from considering the relation between the parties of Paul and 
 ApoUos to have been what we have stated above. The Apostle may 
 be trying, 1 Cor. i. 1 2, to give as many names as possible, as a way of 
 portraying the prevailing party spirit in the Corinthian Church, 
 which delighted to multiply sectarian names, which might indicate 
 different colours and shades of opinion, although not exactly 
 different parties. 
 
 Let us, then, first investigate the question wherein the opposition 
 between the parties of Peter and Paul chiefly consisted.^ 
 
 In the above-named treatise, Schmidt finds the chief cause of the 
 difference between the two parties in the presumption which led 
 the Jewish Christians to consider themselves true Christians, and 
 denied that the Gentile Christians were real Christians at all. 
 Among the first Christians there was a party who might (in one way) 
 claim Christ as peculiarly their own : this was the Jewish Christian 
 party. Christ, the Messiah, came in the first place for the sake of 
 the Jews, to whom alone he had been promised ; the Gentiles had 
 to thank the Jews that Christ had come into the world. " Among 
 such proud men as these Jewish Christians, would not the presump- 
 tion arise that Christ, the Messiah, belonged to them alone ? "We 
 find the presumption, 2 Cor. x. 7, exactly in this form. They called 
 themselves rou? tov X/Dto-rot}— adherents of Christ— adherents of the 
 Messiah, — or, changing the name slightly, Xpia-Tiavov<;. If these 
 Christians were Jewish Christians, there can be no doubt that they 
 formed one party with the adherents of Peter." But suppose this 
 to have been the case, something else must have lain at the root of 
 such a presumption on the part of the Jewish Christians ; they must 
 ■ In the first edition there foUowed here a refutation of the views of Storr, 
 Heidenreioh, and Matt on the Peter and Christ party, especiaUy of the theory 
 that the Christ-party contained elements of Sadduceeism. The Editor has not 
 thought it necessary to include this discussion in the second edition. 
 
266 LIFE AND WOKK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 have had something further to appeal to, since it is quite incredible 
 that, as Jewish Christians, putting forward a claim which excluded 
 the Gentile Christians from participation in the Messianic salva- 
 tion, they should have gained entrance into a Church consisting 
 for the greater part of Gentile Christians. Therefore, however right 
 Schmidt may be in seeing the ground of this opposition between the 
 parties of Peter and of Paul, in the claim that encouraged the Petrine 
 party to call themselves also ol tov Xpia-Tov, we have still to inquire 
 for some clearer and exacter information on this point than has as 
 yet been discovered. 
 
 In attempting to solve this problem, we shall certainly not be 
 proceeding on an arbitrary assumption, if we suppose that the chief 
 point of the attack made on Paul by the opposite party wiU. be 
 recognisable in one way or another in the Epistles. Now a great 
 deal of space is devoted in both of the Epistles to a vindication of 
 his apostolical dignity, which his opponents refused to concede to 
 him to its fuU extent. May not the reason of their not recognising 
 him as a real and genuine Apostle, have been that he was not, in the 
 same sense as Peter and the rest of the Apostles, tov Xpiarov; 
 that he had not like these stood in direct connection with Jesus 
 during his life on earth ? Peter himself had no share in the party 
 which went by his name in Corinth ; in fact he was never in Corinth 
 at all ; but everything tends to show that travelling pseudo-apostles 
 had come to Corinth, who made use of Peter's name. In the 
 second Epistle, in which Paul expresses his views of these opponents 
 with less reserve, and proceeds to a direct attack upon them, he calls 
 them plainly, xi. 13, tfrevSairocrToXoi,, -ijrevSdBeXcfioi, epyarai BoXioi, 
 fieTaa-'XTj/Mari^ofievoi, et? aTrocrTo'Xov? XpiaTov. They also claimed 
 to be the true airoa-Tokoi Xpta-Tov, or to be in the closest connec- 
 tion with them, and in this sense to be Xpiarov ovre?. That zeal 
 for the Mosaic law, which was a characteristic of Jewish Christians, 
 was probably their real motive in this case as well as in others ; 
 but in a Church of Gentile Christians, such as that of Corinth, they 
 could not expect a favourable reception, if they brought forward 
 their principles openly, and so they fell back on the more special 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 267 
 
 ground of their Judaistic opposition ; they attacked the apostolic 
 authority of the Apostle, and endeavoured in this way to counter- 
 act him. According to this supposition, we have a very simple and 
 natural explanation of the relation of the party of Peter to that of 
 Christ. Just as those of Paul and of ApoUos did not essentially 
 differ, so these two were not different parties, but only one and the 
 same party under two different names, each name alike suggesting 
 the claim which that party made for itself. They called themselves 
 TOK? Krj^a because Peter held the primacy among the Jewish 
 Apostles, and tou? Xpia-rov because they asserted direct contact 
 with Christ to be the chief token of genuine apostolic authority ; 
 and on this account they would not recognise Paul, who had been 
 called to be an Apostle at a later time and in a quite unusual and 
 peculiar manner, as a genuine Apostle, enjoying the same privileges 
 as the others, but considered that he must at least be placed far 
 below the rest of the Apostles.^ On this account also their desig- 
 nation, evidently chosen with a purpose, was ol tov Xpiarov, not 
 rov 'Itjo-ov or tov Kvplov. The idea of the Messiah was to be made 
 prominent, as if to suggest that only those could be reckoned true 
 media for the communication of the Messianic happiness and 
 blessing, of the higher life that flows from Christ, who had received 
 that charge by the most immediate transmission, by an outward, 
 well-attested connection with the person of Jesus as the Messiah. 
 
 We have now to bring what evidence we can in support of the 
 view here brought forward, by an examination of some important 
 passages in the two Epistles. Perhaps even the first section, in 
 which the Apostle gives a vindication of his apostolic authority 
 and work (chaps, i.-iv.), contains some statements, in making which 
 he had before his mind those adherents of the party of Peter who 
 
 1 Some scholars, notably Zach. Pierce (Pott, Proleg. p. 25), argue from a pas- 
 sage in the first Epistle of Clemens Romanus (c. 47, in oKrjdeias irvfvfMTiKSis 
 iirea-TeiXev vfiXv (6 jxaKapios HavKos 6 airocyToKos) jrcpi avrov re Kat Ki/cpa km 
 'AffoXXu, Bia TO Koi Tore npocrKXla-eis vjxas Trenotria-daL) that the words, 1 Cor. i. 12, 
 iyi) Se Xpta-Tov are probably spurious. I do not know if the passage from Clement 
 is entitled to much weight ; but if it were, I would rather draw from it an argu- 
 ment in support of the theory stated above, that the Cephas-party and the Christ- 
 party were identical 
 
268 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 claimed to be considered as ol tov Xpia-rov. When the Apostle 
 asserts so emphatically, ii. 1 6, rjfieU Se vovv Xpccnov e^x^ofj-ev (inas- 
 mxich as the divine -rrvevfia is the principle of his Christian con- 
 sciousness) ; when, iv. 1, he desires his readers to remember that 
 they have to regard him as a v-rrrip eT7)<; Xpicrrov ; when, iv. 10, he 
 asserts that he, as the least of the Apostles, is willing to consider 
 himself as a yiitapo? hia Xpiarov, if at least they are right in 
 considering themselves as ^povijioi ev Xpiaru) ; when, verse 15, 
 he reminds them that it is of less importance to have (ivpiovs 
 ■TraiSaywyovi ev XpicrrS than ttoXXou? Trarepa's ; in all passages 
 such as these where there is evidently some hint implied, it is 
 most natural to think of the party he has already mentioned, of 
 those who called themselves ol tov Xpiarov in a peculiar sense, 
 which was meant to be offensive to our Apostle ; though, of course, 
 these special references retire behind the general apologetic ten- 
 dency of the whole passage. An important passage for our purpose 
 is at all events to be found in ix. 1, sq. The Apostle suddenly 
 changes his subject here, and begins to speak of his own personal 
 affairs; yet the section beginning ix. 1 is clearly related to the 
 subject of the previous chapter ; the opening for a personal 
 discussion is very judiciously taken advantage of In the eighth 
 chapter the Apostle had taken up the question which had been 
 laid before him, of participation in the heathen sacrificial feasts, 
 and of the use of meat offered to idols ; and had gone on to say 
 that there might be cases in which, from tender consideration for 
 others, a man might see it to be his duty to abstain from what in 
 itself and for him was perfectly lawful. He turns this idea in 
 such a way as to show that many of the things which his opponents 
 interpreted to his disadvantage were acts of voluntary renunciation, 
 undertaken for the sake of his apostolic calling. As an Apostle, 
 he also had certain rights of which he, as well as the other Apostles, 
 might avail himself; but he had never done so, because higher 
 considerations had commanded him to make no use of them, Ovk 
 eifjbi eXevOepof ; ovk €i/j,i aTroa-ToXo<i ; oup^t 'l7]aovv Xpiarov tov 
 Kvpiov Tjfjiwv iapuKa ; am I not free ? am I not an Apostle ? (an 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO TRE GORINTEIANS. 269 
 
 Apostle as much as any other Apostle ?) have I not seen the Lord 
 Jesus Christ ? "Why the appeal to the ewpuKevai 'Iijaow XpiaTov, 
 TOP Kvpiov rifj,a)v, as a vindication of the airoaro'ko'i elvai, if his 
 opponents did not deny him the real apostolic character, because 
 he had not seen the Lord as they, or rather, as the Apostles at the 
 head of their party had done, and had not lived in direct contact 
 ■with him? This, then, was held to be the genuine token of 
 Xpta-Tov elvat. But that these opponents of the Apostle belonged 
 to one class with the adherents of the party of Peter is clear from 
 the following words, verse 5 : firj ovk e^ofiev e^ovalav dSeXcfyrjv 
 yvvacKa trepiwyeiv, w; Kai oi Xonroi, aTrocTToXoc, Kai ot, aSeX(f>ol tov 
 Kvpiov, Koi Krj(j)a'; ; the XpcaTov elvat held good of all these men 
 in the sense already discussed ; it held good of the whole circle of 
 the Apostles, who had enjoyed communion with Jesus ; it was true 
 even in a sense of the dBe\(j)ol Kvpiov, inasmuch as they stood in 
 a stiU nearer connection to the Lord as his relatives ; and it ap- 
 plied most directly to Peter, inasmuch as Jesus himself had given 
 him a certain precedence over the other Apostles, and he was in 
 his own person the most complete representative of the whole 
 relation between Jesus and his apostles. But Paul thought that 
 he himself, in the fuU consciousness of his apostolic dignity, and 
 the rights and claims connected with it, ought not to take a 
 secondary place even to Peter. In token that he possessed the 
 same rights as the other Apostles, and especially the right to live 
 at the expense of the churches to whom he preached the Gospel, 
 the Apostle appeals, first, to what holds good in law and custom in 
 common life (verses 7, 8); secondly, to a precept of the Mosaic law, 
 which indeed primarily referred to animals needed for the use of 
 man, but which warranted the conclusion a minore ad majus (9-12) ; 
 and thirdly, to the custom prevailing in the Mosaic sacrificial 
 worship (13). But however well grounded his claim on this score 
 might be, he being an Apostle as well as the rest, still he had 
 never made any use of it, because it seemed to him to be better 
 for the cause of the Gospel and more satisfactory for himself not 
 to do so. Accordingly, living constantly in the consciousness of 
 
270 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part II. 
 
 the great aim to which he had devoted himself, he subordinated 
 his whole personality to the interests of others and the regard to 
 be paid to them, and his carnal nature he held in such subjection 
 that it served the needs of his spirit absolutely and exclusively 
 (15-27). This whole section is best explained by supposing that 
 the opponents of the Apostle had interpreted the humility and 
 unselfishness with which he preached the Gospel in the churches, 
 as an obvious admission by the Apostle himself that he did not 
 dare to place himself on a level with the other Apostles, by making 
 use of a right which was universally conceded to their of&ce. As 
 a contrast to this supposed weakness and want of confidence, they 
 thought they themselves had the less cause to keep within bounds 
 the selfish and self-seeking ifKeove^ia (2 Cor. xii. 17) of which 
 the Apostle elsewhere accuses them. But as these charges were 
 a part of the great attack on his apostolic dignity, the Apostle 
 must have felt it necessary to vindicate himself from them, and 
 to place his behaviour in its true light. In this passage his 
 apology is foimded mainly on the eapaKevai 'Irjaovv Xpicrrov, tov 
 Kvpiov rjfieov. Without explaining more clearly the peculiar nature 
 of this iapuKevai, he insists upon the main fact which places him 
 on a level with the other Apostles : he can certainly maintain 
 that the Lord has appeared to him individually. "When he asserts 
 (xv. 8) that the Lord appeared to him as well as to the other 
 Apostles, the intention of the statement is probably the same. 
 The great exposition of the doctrine of the resurrection which 
 follows might certainly seem to require what we may caU evidence 
 at first hand for the main proposition on which it proceeds, 
 namely, that Jesus rose from the dead, and was really seen as so 
 risen. Yet this does not prevent us from supposing that the 
 Apostle took care not to neglect the opportunity which thus arose 
 of vindicating his claims to what his opponents chose to declare to 
 be the chief mark of apostolic authority, placing himself on one 
 line with the disciples who had been connected with Jesus during 
 his lifetime, and maintaining that he, as well as they, possessed an 
 immediate vision of the Lord, as the seal of his mission. 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO TEE CORINTHIANS. 271 
 
 The polemical references for -whicli the Apostle had so frequent 
 occasion in both Epistles are more open and more direct in the 
 second than in the first ; yet it is only at the end of the Epistle that 
 the Apostle openly attacks his opponents, casts away all reserve, 
 and subjects them to a keen and trenchant cross-examination. 
 
 In the earlier part of the Epistle, the passage v. 1-16, a most 
 important one in itself, receives an added interest from its reference 
 to his opponents. At the outset the Apostle assures the Corinthians 
 in different ways of his love to them, which should call forth their 
 confidence, and seeks to convince them of the purity of his views 
 and efforts. In answer to the reproaches of his opponents, he 
 points to the success which had attended his teaching through the 
 ability given him by God as a minister of the SiaKovla ttj^ Kawrj^ 
 SiaOrjKT]^. The greater the superiority of the Kaivri BtadriKrj, the 
 greater also is the superiority of the Siaicovia. But in striking 
 contrast to this, the Apostle continues, iv. 7, " are the sufferings 
 of all kinds with which I, as a weak failing man, have to struggle — 
 sufferings which threaten every moment to overwhelm my strength 
 — still gloriously am I preserved through them aU by that might 
 which conquers death through life, by which Jesus was raised from 
 the dead. Therefore I do not aUow my sufferings to hinder me in 
 the duties of my office. Sufferings only serve to educate the in- 
 ward man, the true real man, for future glory." This idea makes 
 the Apostle speak, in chapter v., of the moment at which the 
 earthly body, under the burden of which we now groan, will be 
 changed into a glorified heavenly body, v. 1-4. This confident 
 expectation, which belongs essentially to our Christian conscious- 
 ness, of a condition in which, after departing from the body, we 
 shall be present with the Lord, or enter into the most intimate 
 connection with him, should even now impart to all our acts and 
 efforts the most conscientious reference to Christ, for indeed it is 
 he who will pronounce the judgment which our moral conduct 
 shall have deserved (5-14). "This consciousness accompanies me 
 in my apostolic labours, and you yourselves must bear me this 
 witness ; you may boldly assert against my opponents, and main- 
 
272 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part II. 
 
 tain against them, for my honour, what my inmost heart declares, 
 namely, that it is not in the least my own person or my own 
 interest that I serve. I labour in the spirit of that love in which 
 Christ so offered himself up for us, that we can only live for him, 
 and all our former ties and relationships have ceased to exercise 
 any determining influence on us, wherefore we see ourselves placed 
 in. a perfectly new sphere of consciousness and life. The principal 
 actuating cause by which we are raised to this completely new 
 order of things is the reconciliation which God has effected through 
 the death of Christ between himself and man. This reconciliation 
 is the great burden of my apostolic preaching, the object of my 
 labour ; and it is really only Christ in whose name I work — only 
 God, whose voice is heard through me. How then can I be so 
 interested about my own person that my opponents should have 
 any right to accuse me of a vain self-praise and of self-seeking 
 views ? " In this connection the Apostle uses the remarkable 
 expression, Xpicrrov Kara a-apxa yovwaKeiv. The Xdkjtos Kara 
 crdpKa can only be the Christ or Messiah of Judaism, and accord- 
 ingly the Apostle says, in a sense which is as grammatically 
 natural as it is satisfactory : " If it were the case that formerly I 
 knew no other Messiah than the Messiah of Judaism — such an 
 one as left me under all the peculiar prejudices and materialistic 
 tendencies of my nation, and who could not raise me to the new stage 
 of spiritual life on which I now stand, where I live for the Christ 
 who died for me, as for all — yet now I do not any longer acknow- 
 ledge this conception of the Messiah as the true one. I have 
 freed myself from all prejudices, from aU the material ideas and 
 expectations which had naturally passed into me from my nation- 
 ality, which had devolved upon me as a Jew by birth." If this 
 is the sense of the passage, it can scarcely be denied that in the 
 expression Xpiarov Kara aapxa jivcucrKeLv, the Apostle cast a 
 glance at his opponents who prided themselves as being specially 
 Tov<i Tov Xpia-Tov. Was it not exactly a Kara adpKa Xpierrov 
 
 1 In the first edition, pp. 284-288, there was a discussion of this phrase. The 
 author did not intend it to appear in a second edition. 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 273 
 
 yivwa-Keiv, did it not indicate that those who brought the allegation 
 were still at the standpoint of Judaism and of the Jewish concep- 
 tion of the Messiah, when his opponents gave it as their reason 
 for denying to Paul the true apostolic character that he had not 
 been in that direct outward contact with Jesus during his Kfe on 
 earth, of which those Apostles could boast who were originally 
 called to the apostolic office by Jesus himself. The true point, 
 the Apostle then says, from which alone ehai ev Xptara, could be 
 deduced, was not so much the earthly and national appearance of 
 Jesus, in which the a-dp^ in the above sense had still its share, 
 but rather the death of Jesus, in so far as it is in that death that the 
 old life dies, and the new life which is to be awakened in us takes 
 its beginning. That which essentially distinguishes the national 
 Jewish Messiah from the Christ of the true Christian conscious- 
 ness, is the sufferings and death of Christ — the great significance 
 of the death on the cross which the Apostle everywhere represents 
 "as the central point of Christian doctrine, and on which he empha- 
 tically and very necessarily insists as against his opponents in these 
 two Epistles. Therefore if the earthly life of Jesus as the Messiah 
 and visible contact with him during his life on earth be taken 
 as a thing of value in itself, and if his whole appearance on 
 earth be not looked at in the light of his death on the cross, 
 and thus stripped of what of it is earthly, then this is still a 
 Xpia-Tov Kara acipKa '•jiVMaKetv, we are still contenting ourselves 
 with a thing given us from the outside, and conditioned by its 
 natural relations, to which we must first die. But if we look at 
 the death of Christ as the great turning-point, in which the Kaivi] 
 KTia-Ks appears — in which old things vanish away and all things 
 become new — then everything falls to the ground that seemed to 
 give the opponents, or rather the Apostles on whose authority the 
 opponents relied, their peculiar lofty precedence, owing to their 
 direct contact with Jesus during his earthly life. It had its 
 foundation merely in relations into which the Apostles had entered 
 as Jews by birth. He also then, the Apostle called so late, may 
 place himself in the same rank with the witnesses of the resurrec- 
 
 VOL. I. s 
 
274 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part 11. 
 
 tion of the Lord. He also has beheld Jesus as the person who, 
 having died and risen to life again, has caused the full meaning of 
 the Christian consciousness and life to dawn in us, and established 
 in us the true Xpia-rov elvat. 
 
 Another passage, x. 7, is very nearly allied to those we have 
 above examined. In chap. x. the Apostle enters on the considera- 
 tion of the charge made against him by his opponents, that he 
 was wanting in personal energy. He declares that he wiU show, 
 on the contrary, that when it comes to the main issue, he will 
 know how to act with all necessary decision and energy, and 
 with the greatest confidence as to the result. And this he says is 
 itself an answer to the charge that he is without the true sign of 
 a Xpiarov av. Unless we look only on the outward appearance, 
 what better proof of Xpiarov elvat can there be than the e^ovaia 
 6t9 oiKohofirfv — the strength and energy with which a man labours 
 in the furtherance of the cause of Christianity ? He says ra Kara 
 irpdcrcoTrov /SXeTrere, not so much of the opponents themselves as 
 of certain members of the Corinthian Church who had already 
 given heed to them, and were in danger of being misled by them 
 stUl further. " If in respect to my person you consider merely 
 what I am KaTo, irpoa-wirov — ^this is a proof that the outward 
 appearance is the chief thing in your eyes, that you judge only by 
 what is outward " {Trpoa-coTrov, as ver. 1 2). These words are gener- 
 ally considered as referring to the so-called party of Christ, and 
 Storr and Flatt understand them according to their view of what 
 that party was, of circumstances of outward relationship. As the 
 Apostle is speaking of the Xpiarov elvat,, the reference to those 
 who considered themselves specially tow rov Xpiarov is certainly 
 very natural, only I can find nothing in this passage either, which 
 would justify the conclusion that oi rov Xpiarov were what could 
 be called a party. It is the general body of his opponents that 
 the Apostle is here dealing with : with all who boasted of their 
 closer outward connection with Jesus or with the immediate 
 disciples of Jesus, and especially with Peter, the first of the 
 Apostles, and found in this the true criterion of Xpiarov elvai. But 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 275 
 
 that these Xpia-rov ovrei belonged to one and the same class as 
 the party of Peter, and the whole Judaising party of opposition, 
 is clearly shown by the connection with what follows, where the 
 Apostle speaks of the inrepXlav d-rroa-ToXoi,. What he advances 
 against his opponents in reference to the Xpiarov elvai, ver. 7, 
 appears to me to amount to this : " If any one maintains so 
 confidently of himself that he is a genuine disciple of Christ, and 
 stands in the true relation towards him, and according to his 
 subjective opinion — since this is the view of the matter he feels 
 himself obliged to take (this lies both in the word eavTu> and in 
 wpda-fBirov, which contains the notion of the subjective element 
 which is determined by personal considerations) — considersoutward 
 connection with Christ to be the proper criterion of true connection 
 with Christ, then such a man must on the other hand concede to 
 me the right of defining the true connection with Christ by another 
 criterion which I judge to be the true one. Looking at the matter 
 in this light I feel that I have at least as good a right as my 
 opponents to assert the Xpicnov elvai, of myself." What token of 
 XpuTTov elvai the Apostle means to indicate in reference to him- 
 self is seen by what follows. "This right, that of considering 
 myself as XpiaTov ovra, from my own standpoint cannot be denied 
 me, in fact there would be no good grounds for refusing to acknow- 
 ledge it, even if I founded much larger claims upon it than I do. 
 Even should I claim a higher official position than I do, my 
 claims would still be true and well-founded ; I should have no 
 fear of being brought to shame ; for I employ my privilege of 
 working as an Apostle only et? oiKoSofiriv and not et? KaOaipecriv 
 vfiwv ; I seek to work only in furtherance of the true welfare of the 
 Church. With such good right do I believe that I am justified in 
 maintaining that I am XpurTov." Thus what the Apostle wishes 
 to set up as the true token of Xpia-rov elvai, in opposition to the 
 Kara irpoaairov p\eireiv, is the aim of oIkoBo/x,^, the genuinely 
 Christian nature of his apostolic activity with its public spirit and 
 zeal for edification ; as he further says in verse 13 : " I am certainly 
 very far from placing myself in the same class with those who 
 
276 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 recommend themselves with empty ambition and after an arbitrary 
 standard which they have made themselves, and seek to exalt their 
 own glory by detracting from the merits of others. My glory lies 
 in those things which I have been actually enabled to effect for the 
 cause of Christianity in my apostolic calling, within the bounds 
 of the circle of action which God has appointed me, insomuch 
 as I was the first who brought Christianity to Corinth, and planted 
 it there, in such a way, I hope, that this may open up to me a 
 yet wider circle of action. So little is it necessary for me to seek 
 my glory in the sphere of others, and so little can anything else 
 than real work done be of any value in the cause of Christianity." 
 The Apostle's antitheses in this passage give rise to a presumption 
 that his opponents not only tried to undermine his authority, but 
 even went so far as to claim the merit of having been the true 
 founders of the Corinthian Church. They came to Corinth after 
 the Apostle indeed, but as they did not acknowledge Paul as a 
 true Apostle, as XpLo-Tov ovra, they assumed to themselves the 
 glory properly belonging to him, at least in so far as they pre- 
 tended to have been the first to plant true Christianity there. 
 
 The section in which the Apostle turns round upon his 
 opponents, and delivers himself of all his feelings with regard to 
 them, and his relation with them, may be said to begin at x. 7. 
 The tone which he uses against them becomes stronger and more 
 vivid at ver. 11. There is a cutting irony in his words, and the 
 picture which he draws of his opponents becomes more and more 
 distinct and repulsive. "You do not want patience at other 
 times," he says, xi. 1, "to listen to what fools have to say (my 
 opponents who would exalt themselves with vain presumption), 
 you wni surely give me a moment's hearing when I speak to you 
 in the same language as a fool. (For my vindication and my 
 praise can only appear as folly from the high standpoint from 
 which my opponents look down upon me.) I am jealous over you 
 with a godly jealousy (I am seized as by a holy jealousy when I 
 think how you transfer the love, to which I as the founder of the 
 Christian Church in Corinth have the justest claim, to others who 
 
Chap. II.] TSE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 277 
 
 only oppose all my aims). I have espoused you to one husband, to 
 present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, as the serpent 
 beguiled Eve through deceit, that your thoughts also may be turned 
 away from your simple faithfulness to Christ. Indeed, if one were 
 to come who preached another Christ whom I have not preached, 
 or if you could receive another spirit or another gospel than that 
 which you have received (i.e. if there could possibly be another 
 Christianity, which you were obliged to regard as the real and true 
 one, and which I had never made known to you, which you 
 learned only now from these teachers ; if, that is to say, I had 
 either not declared the truth to you at all, or had done so incom- 
 pletely and impurely), then indeed you would be quite right to 
 welcome him. (This, then, is the secret of the Apostle's direct and 
 unqualified hostility to his opponents : the question between the 
 two parties amounted to nothing less than that of a true or a false 
 Christianity. When they accused the Apostle that what he 
 preached was not true, the opponents of the Apostle were 
 actually preaching another Jesus and another Christianity.) But 
 this is a perfectly impossible supposition. That Christianity which 
 I have preached to you is the only true one, which deserves to be 
 beheved. For I think that I stand in nothing behind the ' very 
 chiefest Apostles.' " The inrepXlav dvoa-ToKoi may have been the 
 opponents of the Apostle themselves, those who are afterwards 
 called yfrevSaTToo'ToXot,. But as these i^evhavoaToKoi, who in 
 Corinth appealed especially to the authority of the Apostle Peter, 
 came to Corinth from Palestine — and doubtless stood in some 
 connection with the Jewish Apostles of Palestine — the inrepKiav 
 diroaroXoi may well have been the Apostles themselves whose 
 disciples and delegates the yfrevBairdcyTuXoi claimed to be. The 
 expression virepklav airoaToKoi may therefore refer simply to the 
 over-estimate which was attached to the authority of these apostles 
 as against that of PauL This is also indicated by the expression 
 ol BoKovvTei a-TvXoi elvai used, Gal. ii. 9, in reference to James, 
 Peter, and John, which says no more than that this was the 
 estimation in which they were held by a certain party, and which 
 
278 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Pakt II, 
 
 that party wished to impose upon the public as well. " However 
 much," the Apostle accordingly says, "the authority of these apostles 
 may be quoted against me, that proves nothing against the truth of 
 the Christianity which I teach." In what follows, the Apostle 
 declares that he thinks he has every right to feel assured of his 
 apostolic calling, both on account of his true insight into the essence 
 of Christian doctrine, and on account of the disinterested zeal for 
 the cause of Christianity which he had shown in all his relations 
 with the Corinthian Church, as indeed through his whole life. 
 " For," he declares firstly, " I have in the most disinterested manner 
 never once made any claim upon you for my support, while my 
 opponents use all the deceitful and seductive arts with which they 
 are so well acquainted (pi toiovtoi ■y^evha-rroaroXot, epyaTai hoXiot, 
 fji,eTaaj(r}fj,aTi.^ofj,evoi, et? aTroaTo\ov<; Xpiarov, as he calls these 
 false teachers who assumed nothing but the name of Apostles of 
 Christ, verse 13) to make gain out of you, and use you as tools for 
 their selfish plans," verses ■7-20. Secondly, he says, "My whole 
 life has been a series of hardships, sacrifices, and dangers, which 
 I have undertaken for the cause of Christianity," 20-33. This 
 passage sets it beyond doubt that these opponents were bom Jews, 
 of genuine Israelite descent. They belonged therefore to the 
 party of Peter, and doubtless appealed to Peter's authority in 
 support of their own claims. Keeping up his ironical tone, the 
 Apostle aUows for the moment his enemies' charge of dippoavvri, 
 to use it as a mask for confronting his presumptuous and vain 
 opponents on their own ground, in their assertion of empty dis- 
 tinctions, and enable himself to say things which sounded like 
 foolish and vain self-praise, but which were best put before the 
 Corinthians, accustomed as they were to the speeches of his over- 
 bearing opponents, in this tone (compare 19, 20, 21). He asks the 
 question (22), E^paiol eicri ; Kayuf 'la-paifKiral elcri ; Kaya' 
 cnrepfMa A^padp, ela-i, ; Kayw, If, he says, there is to be such a 
 KavyaaOai, Kara Tr]v adpKa, (18) a Hav)(aadai referring to mere 
 inherited and fortuitous distinctions, I can rival my opponents even 
 on this ground. But they do not only claim to be genuine Israel- 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 279 
 
 lies, but also as such, SiaKovoi, Xpiarov. If it appears to them to 
 be mere folly on my part that I venture to claim equality with 
 them with respect to the above-mentioned advantages, they will 
 consider it to be nothing short of madness (irapacppovelv here 
 plainly means much more than the former expression dfjipoa-vvv) 
 that I even claim to surpass them, appealing as I do to something 
 far more real than these advantages of theirs, namely the facts of 
 my apostolic ministry, by which its reality is abundantly attested. 
 Here we see that those persons who had so high an opinion of 
 themselves as born Jews, also asserted that they were the true 
 SiaKovoo Xpiarov. In the following chapter, xii., also, the Apostle 
 carries on the vindication of his apostolic authority, and now he 
 adds a third reason to the two he has already mentioned in chap, 
 xi., in proof of the right he has to feel sure of his apostolic calling. 
 This third reason consists in the extraordinary revelations which 
 he had received, especially an ecstasy into which he had been 
 thrown during the first period of his apostolic career. StUl he 
 does not appeal to these revelations, he says, for the sake of 
 boasting. On the contrary, he bears about in his body a trouble 
 which ever keeps alive in him the feeling of his human weakness 
 as a corrective of any exalted opinion of himself, and which causes 
 him to put his whole trust in divine help. He had been induced 
 to say what he had said in his own praise, only because the 
 Corinthians had not said what they should properly have said in 
 vindication of him against his opponents. How far he was from 
 being behind the other Apostles they themselves had the best 
 means of judging, as he had approved himself among them by aU 
 the signs of a genuine apostolic mode of activity ; and no benefit 
 that Christianity had conferred on other churches had failed to be 
 conferred on them. There cannot be anyreasonable doubt that 
 the mention of the cnrTaaiM and aTroKdXmlrei'; to which the 
 Apostle here appeals has a very close connection with his apolo- 
 getic aim and the character of the opponents with whom he is 
 dealing. If, as Judaising teachers of Christianity, and in accord- 
 ance with the view which must have been that of the Petrinists 
 
280 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 or of the Christ-party, they held an outward connection with Jesus, 
 and intercourse with him, such as had been enjoyed by those 
 disciples whom Christ had called and educated expressly for their 
 office, to be the true criterion of the XpicrTov etvai and the apostolic 
 calling, then the Apostle Paul, when he came to the last and 
 highest point of his argument in defence of his apostolic office, 
 naturally appealed to an inward spiritual experience instead of the 
 outward material experiences of the rest of the Apostles. This 
 inward experience consisted in those extraordinary phenomena 
 which, as inward visions and revelations of the Divine, as facts of 
 his immediate consciousness, had awakened faith in Christ within 
 him — that iwpaKevai Irjaovv XpicrTov tov Kvpiov rjfiuv, to which 
 he had already appealed, 1 Cor. ix. 1, and which must certainly be 
 classed together with the oTrraaiai and a-TroKaXvyJrei^ Kvpiov which 
 he speaks of here, although it is not probable that the ecstasy de- 
 scribed in verse 2 is the same with the phenomenon related in the 
 Acts of the Apostles (chap, ix.), which brought about the Apostle's 
 conversion. Such oTrracnai kuo a7roKa\v\lrei<s might appear to the 
 opponents of the Apostle to be mere imaginary visions which 
 could make no claim to objective truth, in comparison with the 
 actual outward relations in which the other Apostles had lived with 
 Jesus, and according to the principles which Peter had laid down. 
 Acts i. 21, on the occasion of the election of the Apostle Matthias. 
 But for the Apostle himself the phenomena which had thus trans- 
 pired in his inner life were none the less solid and incontestable 
 facts ; and willingly as he would have avoided speaking of them 
 at all, in order to escape every appearance of vain self-exaltation, 
 yet here it behoved him to be silent on nothing which might serve 
 for the vindication and establishment of his apostolic authority, 
 and he could not omit appealing to them. But he could not con- 
 ceal from himself that this evidence to his apostolic call belonged 
 only to the sphere of his own immediate consciousness ; and this 
 made him insist the more pointedly, as he does again and again 
 throughout the whole of these two Epistles, on that witness of facts 
 to which the character of objective reality could be least denied — 
 
CiiAP. II.] THE EPISTLES TO TEE CORINTHIANS. 281 
 
 namely, the great experiment in which his apostolic calling had 
 been verified, and the great success which had attended his efforts 
 to further the cause of Christianity. Compare 1 Cor. iii. 8-1 5 ; ix. 15, 
 sj.; XV. 10 {trepiaaoTepov avTwv nravToiv eKoiriaa-d) 2 Cor. x. 12, sqq. 
 
 That this controversy turned on a question of principle, in which 
 it was necessary to trace the difference between our Apostle and 
 the older Apostles up to its origin and its true grounds, is shown 
 in a noteworthy way in the passage 2 Cor. iii. 1, sq. In this 
 passage we hear of eiria-ToKai crvaTaTiKoi, of letters of commenda- 
 tion which certain persons (rivh as the rtves cltto 'Iukw^ov — Gal. 
 iL 12, opponents of the Apostle) had brought with them to Corinth. 
 The object of these letters must have been to afford evidence that 
 the bearers were genuine, trustworthy preachers of Christianity, 
 and bore the seal of an acknowledged authority. Under what 
 other names then can these letters have been drawn up but those 
 of the elder Apostles ? and what could make it seem necessary to 
 issue such letters of commendation and authentication, but the fact 
 of the parties in the Church being so suspicious of each other, that 
 it was necessary for any one who wished to appear as a teacher, in 
 order not to be taken for a false teacher, to provide evidence to 
 which party he belonged, and to which principles and teachings he 
 adhered ? The more considerable the authority was to which such 
 missionaries referred, and the more universally acknowledged it 
 was, the more certainly could they reckon on their reception and 
 influence. From what other place then could they bring with 
 them so satisfactory a legitimation as from Jerusalem ?^ The eirt- 
 
 1 That such a legitimation belonged to the principles of the Judaisers, and was 
 custoinary among them, we see from passages of the pseudo-Clementine writings, 
 which also afford a satisfactory explanation of the fVtoToXai crvo-TaTiKal In the 
 4th Book of the Recognitions, C. 34, the Apostle Peter says the devil sends abroad 
 into the world false prophets, and false apostles, and false teachers, who indeed 
 speak in the name of Christ, but do the will of the devil ; he exhorts them there- 
 fore to use caution, " et nuUi doctorum credatis nisi qui Jacobi fratris Domini ex 
 Hierusalem detulerit testimonium vel ejus quicunque post ipsum fuerit. Nisi 
 enim quis illuo ascenderit, et ibi fuerit probatus quod sit doctor idoneus et fldelis 
 ad prsdicandum Christi verbum, nisi, inquam, inde detulerit testimonium, re- 
 cipiendus nou est ; sed neque propheta, neque apostolus in hoc tempore speretur 
 a vobia aliquis alius praeter nos." Compare Homily ii. 35. 
 
282 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 o-ToXot o-vaTaTiKol thus point to a higher authority standing in 
 the background, behind the opponents with whom the Apostle is 
 contending, and which he saw went to discredit his own; he 
 therefore takes occasion from those letters to explain fully the 
 principle of his apostolic authority. This he does in chapter iii. 
 If no one were admitted to be a real, authenticated teacher of 
 Christianity except he were recommended from Jerusalem and 
 brought with him thence a " letter of commendation/' this could 
 only be on the principle that there were no other Apostles but the 
 elder ones. This the Apostle could not concede, and yet with 
 regard to his apostolic office and apostolic authority he could only 
 appeal to that evBoKrjaev 6 0eo9 awoicaXvy^ai tov vbov avTOV ev 
 Ifiol, Gal. i. 15, that is to say, to a mere fact of his own conscious- 
 ness. Starting then from these eiriaToXal ava-raTiKol, and seeking 
 for some objective fact to bring in proof of his own claims, he 
 maintains that he has an epistle of commendation as well as his 
 opponents, although a very different one. His letters of com- 
 mendation are the Corinthians themselves, and written indeed in 
 his own heart. What they are as Christians concerns him so 
 nearly, that it is an essential part of his own self-consciousness. 
 But as he has to show not only what they are to him, but also 
 what they are objectively as recommending and authenticating 
 him to others, he adds that this letter written in his inmost heart 
 is also lying open before the eyes of the world, legible to every 
 one, laid before the general consciousness of the world, composed 
 by him under the commission of Christ, written not with ink but 
 with the Spirit of the living God, not on tables of stone, but on 
 the fleshly tables of the heart ; i.e. the legitimation of his apostohc 
 authority is the fact of the success of his preaching of the Gospel, 
 the fact that through him the Corinthians have become a Christian 
 Church. He who founds Christian Churches may with justice 
 consider himself to be an Apostle of Christ, because he caimot do 
 such work except by Christ working in him. The argument is 
 one from result to cause, it is an appeal to the principle which we 
 must conclude to be present where a certain movement takes place. 
 
Chap. II.] tB^ EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS 283 
 
 In the same way the Apostle says to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. ix. 2, 
 in arguing against those who were not willing to allow his claim 
 to he an Apostle : el ^XXot? oi/c el/u d-n-oaroXo';, dwd ye vfilv elfu- 
 Tj yap a^jpayh T'fji Ififj^ a.TroaToX'^^ vp^h eVre ev Kvpltp- rj efiv 
 aiToXoyla toi<! ep,e dvuKplvovaiv ainrj ea-rl. In the same way also, 
 in Gal. ii. 7, he grounds his eva/yyeXiov t^? aKpo^varia^ on the fact 
 that he who had wrought in Peter eh a-rroaTokijv t^? ■KepuTop.fi^, 
 has wrought effectively in himself et? ra eOvn—i.e. the existence of 
 Gentile Christian Churches is the result of this evepyelv. But the 
 greater and more evident the success of his ministry, the more 
 certain is it that he derived the apostolic commission which it pre- 
 supposes only from God and Christ, whose servant he is — and he 
 derives it from Christ as the founder of a new haOriKrj of which the 
 irvevfia is the principle. The more perfectly this principle is 
 realised in him, the more able he is to produce a result corre- 
 sponding to this principle. The question therefore can only he 
 what it comprises and how it acts in him. Thus the whole stage 
 of development at which the religious consciousness of the Old 
 Testament stands is the subject in opposition to which the Apostle 
 develops the idea of the irvevfia as the Christian principle, iii. Il- 
 ls. He defines the essential difference between the two BiaOrJKai 
 by the two ideas ypdfip.a and ■jrvevp.a, the airoKrelveiv on one side, 
 and the ^aoTrotetv on the other ; he then considers the subjective 
 side of this objective difference, in the light of the question, what 
 is the attitude of the religious consciousness in each of the two 
 haOrjKai ? He works this out by means of the Old Testament 
 narrative of the glory on the face of Moses. This glory is a symbol 
 of the character of the old BiadriKr], as well with regard to its 
 advantages as to its defects. Its advantages consisted in having a 
 glory in which the majesty of God reflected itself in such a manner, 
 and from this we may conclude that if the old Bia6riK7] had such 
 a glory, the new one will be infinitely more glorious and splendid. 
 The defect of the old BiaOrj/cr] consisted first in the transitory nature 
 of the glory on the face of Moses ; and even more in the fact that 
 ou account of the veil which covered the face of Moses in order to 
 
284 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 hide the glory from their eyes, the Israelites did not perceive its 
 extinction when that happened, and therefore believed that it 
 still continued after it had become extinct. This veil, the symbol 
 of Mosaism, still lies on the consciousness of the Jews, this is the 
 limitation in their religious consciousness, that they do not realise 
 the finite nature of the old SiaOriKi]. In contrast to this conceal- 
 ment and constraint which belongs to the character of Judaism, is 
 the irvevfia as the Christian principle, the Christian consciousness 
 certain of itself in its unity with Christ, identical with itself and 
 absolute, which unfolds to the full knowledge of the truth, and has 
 no need of any merely outward medium. If where the Spirit is, 
 the Lord is also, then the Lord himself is the Spirit, iii 16 ; then 
 he who has the Spirit in the sense meant by the Apostle is in the 
 SiaKovia Tov Tn^eu/taro?, iii. 8, and is also a Bi,aKovo<! Xpi(7Tov, 
 xi. 23. The opponents whom the Apostle encountered at Corinth 
 also considered themselves to be SiaKovot Xpiarov. As they were 
 not Apostles themselves, but were forced to rest their claims on 
 some apostolic authority, they must have considered those to whose 
 authority they appealed to be specially airoaroKov^ Xpia-rov, in the 
 same sense, that is to say, in which they themselves claimed to 
 be BieiKovoi Xpiarov. They were not Apostles, but if, as the Apostle 
 says, they were /u.eTaa-'^'rjfMaTi^oix.evoi et? aTrotrroXou? Xpiarov, this 
 d-TToaroXoi Xpiarov suggests that they called the Apostles, on 
 whose authority they relied and whose representatives they desired 
 to be considered. Apostles of Christ in the same emphatic sense 
 in which they themselves claimed to be BiaKovoi Xpiarov, and in 
 which the Apostle himself speaks of the Xpiarov eivai, x. 7. In 
 what else could the distinguishing criterion of their Xpiarov elvai 
 consist, as against the Apostle Paul, but in this, that the elder 
 Apostles, on account of the direct companionship which they had 
 with Jesus during his earthly life, must be the only authenticated 
 preachers and ministers of the Messianic salvation ? And what 
 other standpoint could the Apostle himself take up in maintaining 
 his own apostolic authority than that which we see him take up in 
 these two Epistles, opposing to the external considemtions urged 
 
Ghap. II.] TSE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 285 
 
 by his opponents the inward and the spiritual, and making the 
 Spirit, which is the Lord himself, the principle of true communion 
 and of true apostolic activity ? Thus it is evident how he could 
 not justify himself to those who were his opponents on this occasion 
 in Corinth without referring to the Apostles whose representatives 
 they claimed to be. That he was in no whit behind them, that 
 he could claim for himself the same rights as they did, and bore 
 in himself the same apostolic consciousness, — this is the assump- 
 tion on which he proceeds when he comes to close quarters with 
 them, xi. 5 ; and to this he adheres throughout his whole discussion, 
 as is shown by the repetition of this statement, xii. 1 1. Whilst 
 far removed from doing anything to discredit their apostolic dignity, 
 yet he cannot tolerate the exclusive claims set up on their behalf 
 by his opponents. The admirably chosen phrase ol inrepXiav 
 aTTocTToXoi is meant to show that he had no fault to find with them- 
 selves, but only with the exaggerated view of them held by others. 
 They are confronted with him as the " grand Apostles," as if he 
 were nothing in comparison with them (ovSe'v elfii he says, xii. 11, 
 in a sense that was true for him, but not without allusion to this), 
 and as if he were not to count as an Apostle of Christ at all. If 
 in maintaining his apostolic authority he had only said that he was 
 in no respect behind such opponents as he characterises in chap. 
 xi., those yjrevBaTTOcTToXoi, epydrac BoXioi, fieTac7-)(7}/j,an^ofievoi et? 
 aTroaToXov; Xpiarov, what a mean opinion must he have enter- 
 tained of himself and of his apostolic dignity ? He could only 
 have meant to measure himself with the Apostles themselves, and 
 the (T'i)fie'la tov airoaToKov of which he speaks, xii. 12, cannot be 
 understood of any other comparison. 
 
 Our exposition of the principal passages concerned has thus 
 shown us that all the points of the Apostle's controversy with his 
 opponents may be reduced to the idea of Xpicnov elvai, that being 
 the main criterion of apostoUc authority, and the question being 
 as to the real meaning of the term. If we be correct so far, it wUl 
 follow that those who claimed to be specially ol tov Xpiarov 
 asserted of themselves that Xpiarov ehai against which the 
 
280 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 Apostle Paul found himself obliged emphatically to assert and to 
 defend his own view of the principle. 
 
 We might suppose that the question of the party of Christ is 
 here answered with as great a measure of probability as the avail- 
 able data allow ; but since this view was first propounded certain 
 objections have been raised to it which it will be well to consider 
 before we go further.-' 
 
 It is granted that my view does justice to the phrase ol tov 
 XpKTTov, that it is corroborated by many antithetical references ia 
 both Epistles, and might even appear as the only correct solution 
 of the difficulty ; but it is thought that by this theory the difficulty 
 is not overcome, that the party of Christ is distinguished from the 
 party of Peter only in name, whilst the name clearly stands for a 
 party which was one of several ; or, what is the same thing, that 
 the identity of the party of Peter with that of Christ is nowhere 
 indicated. Till this be proved we cannot see in 1 Cor. x. 7 any 
 dispute with the party of Christ, but only the assertion which the 
 Apostle brings against his opponents of Peter's party, namely, that 
 if they were Christians so was he.^ Now if we could find a passage 
 in which it was said clearly and decidedly that the Petrinists and 
 those of Christ were one and the same party, then the matter 
 would be very easily decided. But as no such passage is to be 
 
 ^ Compare Neander, Gesch. der Pflanzung u. Leitung der christl. kirche, 1832, 
 1 Thl. p. 298, Bohn 234. Billroth, Commentar zu den Briefen des Paulua an 
 die Korinthier, Leipzig, Einl. p. xix. Euckert, Der erste Brief Pauli an die 
 Korinthier, Leipzig, 1836, Appendix, p. 435. Schenkel. De Ecclesia Corinthia 
 primaiva factionibus turbata. Disquisitio critico-historica ad antiqxiissimum 
 ecclesife Christianse statum illustrandum pertinens, BasiL 1838. Goldhorn, Die 
 Christuspartei zu Korinth im Zeitalter der Apostel, in Ulgen's Zeitschr. fur hist. 
 Theol. 1840. Diibne, Die Christuspartei in d. Apost. kirche zu Korinth. Halle, 
 1841. Compare with these my replies in the Tiibinger Zeitschr. fur Theol. 1836, 
 H. 4. p. 1, und in den Jahrb. fiir wissensch. Kritik. 1839, No. 88. In the com- 
 mentaries of Olshausen, Meyer, De Wette, Osiander, etc., the views of their pre- 
 decessors are merely repeated, and combined now in one way, now in another, 
 ■which only tends to convince one more of the necessity of escaping from this 
 maze of curious and conflicting hypotheses, and reaching some firm ground of 
 fact. This of course cannot be done without framing a consistent theory of the 
 history of the whole period. 
 
 2 Neander, BiUroth, Etickert. 
 
Ohap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO TEE OOBINTHIANS. 287 
 
 found, we are obliged to resort to combination; by comparing 
 together all the data which appear to bear on the subject, and by 
 paying strict attention to the main tendency of the author, we 
 must seek to arrive at a more or less probable result. What a 
 different light is shed upon the passage when we remember, what 
 cannot be denied, that in the passages which deal with the personal 
 relations of the Apostle to his opponents, the point at issue is not 
 Christianity but apostolicity, the criterion of apostolic authority 
 which the Apostle maintains against his opponents. If we can only 
 approach the facts of the case by a process of combination, it is 
 evident that the theory here adduced can only claim relative pro- 
 bability, and then we must ask, what other theory can be brought' 
 forward with a greater show of probability than this one ? 
 
 According to Neander, the adherents of the party of Christ were 
 those who, disregarding the Apostles, professed to hold only to Christ, 
 to recognise him only as their teacher, and to receive direct from 
 hunself, without any mediation, the truth which he taught. This 
 was such a manifestation of self-will, such an arrogant departure 
 from the historical process of development ordained by God for the 
 delivery of divine revelation, as could not but lead to an arbitrary 
 treatment of the Christian doctrines themselves. It might easily 
 happen, that where one party was disposed to attach itself especially 
 to Paul, another to ApoUos, and a third to Peter, persons might at 
 last appear who would not be called by any of these party names, 
 but formed for themselves, and in their own way, a Christianity 
 independent of and different from what the Apostles proclaimed. 
 Their subjective procedure in this may have taken a more mystical 
 or a more rationalistic direction.^ Neander himself thinks that the 
 rationalistic was the more prevailing tone, as according to his view 
 the party of Christ was a philosophical sect, which made of Christ 
 only a second, perhaps a more exalted, Socrates.^ This is the prin- 
 
 1 Op. cit. p. 236. 
 
 2 In his first edition, Neander gives tUs account of the view of Christ's person 
 as that which the Christ-party must have held. It is an admirable and appropri- 
 ate feature in his discussion of this party, and it is difficult to see why it is 
 omitted in the subsequent editions. Of course this parallel shows most distinctly 
 
288 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 cipal view that has been set up against mine : its distinctive feature 
 is that it endeavours, instead of identifying the parties of Christ and 
 of Peter, to find as far as possible a specific difference between them. 
 But what this idea leads to when it is carried out, and how much it 
 is wanting in even probable grounds, is shown by the modification 
 which it has received from Riickert. He maintains that the party 
 of Christ was not, as Neander says, composed of persons of philo- 
 sophical culture who had made for themselves their own philosophical 
 view of Christ ; the alternatives are, he says, that either the party of 
 Christ took its stand as a party among the other parties, or set itself 
 up as the only true Church, which the rest of the sects ought to join. 
 The first idea he decides cannot be entertained, as Christ could not 
 have been looked upon as a mere teacher such as Paul, ApoUos, or 
 Cephas ; the second alternative must therefore be accepted. The 
 party of Christ placed itself above the others, maintained that it 
 did not adopt the views either of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Cephas, 
 but acknowledged Christ alone as its Lord and Master; but it 
 did not do this in the sense in which Paul certainly desired that 
 all men should be Xpcarov.^ In what sense then did it do this? 
 The party of Christ must naturally have been a separate party, or 
 it would not have been reckoned by the Apostle along with the 
 rest ; further, it must have recognised Christ as Lord and Master, 
 or it would not have designated itself by his name, but it cannot 
 have acknowledged him in the right way, or else Paul would not 
 have described it as a mere party. But what is all this but a series 
 of purely abstract definitions, out of which we can get no concrete 
 idea of what this party actually was. Till we can say what made 
 it a party, not only negatively but positively, we cannot conceive of 
 it as a party at all ? It cannot have been a philosophical sect, as 
 Eiickert expressly declares ; but can it have been a mystical one, 
 
 that these disciples of Christ who placed Christ on the same level as Socrates, no 
 longer stood upon the platform of Christianity. Then the very name oi rofl 
 Xpia-Tov contradicts the theory of Neander. Whilst the name would have marked 
 them as a sect who specially pretended to possess the true Christianity, this view 
 of Christ which is attributed to them would have made them a sect completely 
 unchristian. i Qp. cit. p. 446, 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 289 
 
 according to Neander's distinction? Schenkel, Goldhorn, and 
 Dahne consider the adherents of the party of Christ to have been 
 visionaries, in a sense which raises a further difference between their 
 theories and my own. In my view the Christ of the party of Christ 
 was the bodily Christ who was connected with his disciples through 
 the intercourse of outward physical life ; but in the view of these 
 critics he was a spiritual Christ revealing himself in visions from 
 heaven. The disciples of Christ boasted, it is said, of a mainly 
 inward union with Christ, on the strength of which they declared 
 themselves independent of all the autocratic authority of the 
 Apostles, but this boast of theirs they did not rest on a special out- 
 ward relation with Christ, but only 'On an inward one, on heavenly 
 revelations made to them in visions, which they set in com- 
 petition with the transmission of doctrine through the Apostles. 
 To this Schenkel refers what is said by the Apostle, 2 Cor. xii. 1, 
 of his oTTTaaiai and airoKaXv-^ei'i, as the Apostle speaks of his 
 owTaaiat and airoKoKv^ei'; only in this place and nowhere else, 
 and, as he himself says here, only because his opponents forced him 
 to do so. His opponents must have been boasting of their special 
 visions and revelations of Christ, and, since they had these to glory 
 in, have thrown off all apostolic authority. This therefore clearly 
 shows that the party of Christ had called themselves by the name 
 of Christ and not by that of an Apostle, because they did not recog- 
 nise the Apostles' authority. The reason of this must have lain in 
 what happened at the feast of Pentecost. Prom the quite immedi- 
 ate manner in which the Divine Spirit descended from heaven on 
 that occasion, it must have been concluded that the apostoHc 
 instruction was of no great importance, and this conviction must 
 have been strengthened by the sudden conversion of the Apostle 
 Paul by means of a heavenly vision. We cannot accordingly wonder 
 that after that time there arose men who asserted that they were 
 called only by the Spiritual Christ. But what are we to think of 
 this Spiritual Christ ?^ With the precarious suppositions on which 
 the hypothesis rests, he floats before us so completely in the air 
 
 I Schenkel, op. cit. p. 91. 
 VOL. I. T 
 
290 LIFE AND fVOUK OF PA TTL. [Part II. 
 
 that in neither Epistle does he stand on the firm ground of a real 
 existence. How can we assume that the Apostle shared those 
 visions and revelations of which he speaks, with those very opponents 
 with whom he was contending ? It is true that this Christ-party, 
 characterised now in one way and now in another, those neutrals, 
 independent of all apostolic autliority, those adherents of a philo- 
 sophical or Spiritual Christ (all simply modifications of one and the 
 same view), do present that specific difference from the party of 
 Peter which the words of the Apostle seem to require. But we 
 cannot get any clear and definite idea of the party in question; 
 nor is it kept in mind that if it was so characteristically different 
 from all the other parties, this difference must have appeared in the 
 Apostle's treatment of the subject. AATiere does he speak of a party 
 so peculiarly and so essentially different from aU the rest ? or how 
 can it be supposed that he attacked the others, but passed over in 
 complete silence that one which stood in the plainest antagonism 
 not only to Pauline but to Apostolic Christianity, and threatened 
 to destroy its very foundations ? If we say with Neander, that 
 what the Apostle says in the first chapter of the first Epistle, in con- 
 demnation of the Corinthian party-spirit, applies to the party of 
 Christ as well as to the rest, we can indeed appeal in confirmation 
 of this to the Apostle's own declaration, iv. 6, where he speaks of a 
 fieTaa-)(7]iJ.aTl(^eiv in reference to himself and ApoUos ; this can 
 only be understood as implying that what had just been said in 
 immediate reference to the parties of Paul and Apollos, was per- 
 fectly applicable to the two others as well. But the same diffi- 
 culty presents itself here also. If what is said of one applies also 
 to the others, they must all be reducible to the same category. 
 But how could this be if the party of Christ differed from the three 
 other parties in refusing to recognise an apostolic authority ? This 
 distinction is not made by the Apostle, and in the passages of the 
 two Epistles where the subject is dealt with, we find very natur- 
 ally that the point at issue is not the recognition of an apostohc 
 authority in general, but the recognition of that special authority 
 which the Apostle Paul asserted for himself as against the other 
 Apostles. 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 291 
 
 N"ow if all these modifications of the view which has been set up 
 as against mine stiU fail to give a clear and distinct idea of what 
 the party of Christ was, and are not founded on data contained 
 in the two Epistles, we find ourselves again face to face with the 
 question, whether it is impossible, on the supposition of the identity 
 of the parties of Christ and of Cephas, still to distinguish them and 
 hold them separate in such a way as to explain how the Apostle 
 came to speak of them as of two separate parties. This is in fact 
 the only objection which can be advanced against my theory, and 
 I can see no difficulty in it which does not vanish as soon as we go 
 closer into the relations of the parties in the Corinthian Church. 
 The chief opposition undoubtedly concerned the Apostle Paul. The 
 authority of the Apostle Peter was set up against his. But this 
 relation of opposition may have had a double aspect. The one 
 party called itself after Paul, the other after Peter ; so far there 
 was nothing disparaging to or excluding the Apostle Paul : party 
 stood over against party ; each one held to its own Apostle as its 
 head ; but as soon as we go a little further, and ask for the argu- 
 ment that may have been used why Peter should be followed and 
 not Paul, why the preference was to be given to him over Paul, — 
 if this reason can only be found on looking at the matter from the 
 Jewish standpoint on which the chief opponents of the Apostle in 
 Corinth stood, and found only in the fact that Peter had been 
 an immediate disciple of Christ, while Paul had not, then this 
 relation of opposition does become exclusive ; a principle is estab- 
 lished involving as a necessary consequence that Paul was not to be 
 considered as a true Apostle, because devoid of the most essential 
 qualifications of true apostolic authority. This extreme of opposi- 
 tion against the Apostle was represented by those persons whom he 
 refers to under the name of the party of Christ ; and the nature of the 
 case shows that the party of Christ in this sense was composed of 
 those from whom this whole opposition to the Apostle Paul on this 
 principle proceeded, namely, those Judaising false teachers who had 
 come to Corinth with their letters of recommendation (2 Cor. ii. 1). 
 For the whole party the name of the Apostle Peter was used ; it 
 concealed the principle of the opposition, and formed a natural 
 
292 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part II. 
 
 counterpart to the name of the Apostle Paul. This view of the 
 relation between the party of Peter and the Christ-party not only 
 agrees with the passage 1 Cor. i 1 2, but is even confirmed by it. 
 For as the Apostle here mentions first himself, then Apollos, then 
 Cephas, and lastly Christ, this is clearly an ascending scale : 
 Apollos' stands nearer to him than Cephas, and the party of Christ 
 is further from him than that of Cephas. The Apostle then lays 
 hold of this name of Christ, and, in his peculiar manner, at once 
 puts the question in its extreme form ; beginning his reply boldly 
 with the words, fiefiepca-Tai 6 Xpiaro'i ; is this name {Xpiarov, as a 
 party name) not the most undoubted proof that ye are tearing Christ 
 in pieces with your parties ? Each party must as a Christian party 
 desire to have a share in Christ ; if then there was a peculiar 
 " party of Christ," how was the one Christ divided in whom all 
 ought to find their unity, and all differences to disappear ? This 
 would be the more forcible if the party of Christ were the head- 
 . quarters of the opposition against him, and the focus of all the 
 party troubles in Corinth. 
 
 If this be allowed I do not see what more can be alleged against 
 the view in question. The whole contents of both Epistles agree 
 with it admirably. Though no further reference to the name of 
 the party of Christ should be brought forward, the matter itself on 
 which it alone depends agrees in the most complete manner with 
 all that this view implies. Both names indicate the same party, 
 so that what is said against the party of Peter holds good with 
 regard to the party of Christ. Indeed, only if both parties 
 together formed the opposition to the Apostle Paul in the 
 Corinthian Church can we fully comprehend and enter into the 
 earnest and trenchant polemics against an anti-Pauline Judaising 
 Christianity, which run through both Epistles. But the name is 
 not so completely absent from the Epistles that our theory should 
 not receive its due confirmation from this side as well. Billroth 
 remarks, not without reason, that among the passages in which I 
 find a reference to the party of Christ, only the passage 2 Cor. x. 7 
 distinctly supports my theory ; yet this passage renders further 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO TEE CORINTHIANS. 293 
 
 doubt superfluous, and the want of more passages containing 
 express mention of the party of Christ is very simply explained 
 hy the name of the party itself. It is true, that if once our 
 foundation be firmly laid, many passages will be found to contain 
 unmistakable allusions to the name of the party of Christ, but 
 such passages cannot be used as direct proofs, because the name 
 X/3t(7Tos has its own clear meaning in every case, whether the 
 further reference be in it or no. But the name of the party 
 of Christ appea,rs all the more remarkable in the passage above 
 quoted. We see plainly that the Xptarov elvat is a phrase which 
 the opponents and false teachers, against whom the Apostle con- 
 tended, were in the habit of using, as one which they had a special 
 right to appropriate to themselves as against the Apostle {el tk 
 ireiroiOev eavrm Xpiarov elvai, tovto 'Koyi^eadco iraXiv a(ji eavrov, 
 on KaOo)^ avTO<; XptcTTOu, ovto) koI Tj/^et? Xpicrrov), How 
 fitting is the allusion which the Apostle, in pursuance of his 
 former argument, here makes to the name of those who maintaiued 
 that they were especially and exclusively ol rov XpiaTov. In 
 this name the whole of the opposition against the Apostle was 
 gathered up to a point, in this name a principle was advanced 
 against him, which in the eyes of those who used it no protest 
 that he could make could in the least invalidate. With great 
 reason therefore does the Apostle call this name to his own mind 
 and to that of his readers, when he is proceeding on the one hand 
 to assert that fact which he considers as the most direct and 
 undeniable token of his apostolic authority, and on the other, to 
 attack his enemies without any further reservation or evasion, in 
 the most open and decided manner, and to represent them in all 
 their nakedness, as ■y^evlairoaToKot,, ipyaTai BoXioi, fieTaa-xvi^"''''''- 
 ^oiievoi eU aTToo-ToXoi/s Xpiarov. Thus the polemic of the Apostle 
 contained in the foregoing passages, against both the party of 
 Peter and the party of Christ, reaches its natural climax in the 
 assertion that his opponents were what they claimed to be only in 
 appearance, falsely and deceitfully : that they were not true but 
 only false dirdaToXoL Xpiarov. 
 
294 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part II. 
 
 We must now direct some attention to the fact that according 
 to this theory of the relations of the Corinthian parties, the whole 
 polemic of the Apostle, and the whole arrangement and composi- 
 tion of both these Epistles to which it gave rise, appear as a great 
 and well- harmonised whole. Each of the parties named in 1 Cor. 
 i. 12 is duly considered in the polemic of the Apostle, each has 
 its proper place according to the enumeration in this passage, and 
 to each there is said what is appropriate and needful for it. The 
 first section bearing on this polemic, 1 Cor. i. 12 — iv. 21, is directed 
 against the party of Paul and that of ApoUos, and on this account 
 does not touch upon the difference between Pauline and anti-PauUne 
 Christianity. In discussions like these, it is the Apostle's way to take 
 as wide and general a view as possible ; and so what he rebukes in 
 these two parties is the sensuous tendency which Lies at the root of all 
 such partisanship, and which is wholly inconsistent with aU deeper 
 insight into the true spirit of Christianity. That in this he had the 
 two other parties in view as well, he himself indicates, iv. 6, raina 
 lj,eTea-)(rjfjidTia-a, etc. This is commonly taken as referring merely 
 to iii. 4, sq. But in iii. 22 the Apostle mentions Cephas along 
 with Apollos and himself, and why did he not mention Cephas also 
 in iii. 4, 5 ? I am therefore inclined to refer this fieTa<7j(T)fi.aTl}^eiv 
 to the whole section from i. 'l 2 onwards. All that the Apostle 
 says in this section of the relation of the aoj)ia tov @eov to the 
 ao(f>ia TOV Koafiov, refers most naturally to the difference existing 
 between the party of Paul and that of Apollos. Whilst the 
 Apostle traces the love of the Corinthians for the ao^la Koa-fiov 
 to their sensuousness, to the fact that they were aapKiKoi and not 
 irvevfiaTiKol, iii. 1, and points out, as the source of their divisions 
 and party strife, the carnal mind that stiU dwelt in them, and kept 
 them on so low a level of Christian life, that they might be expected 
 to see for themselves how little they were fitted to set up as 
 judges of their teachers, all these exhortations naturally applied 
 also to the party of Peter. The sectarian spirit showed itself also 
 in that party in the same carnal tendency arising from egotistical 
 interests ; and the excessive self-appreciation which flatters itself 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 295 
 
 with haughty, empty speeches, and which the Apostle lays to the 
 charge of party spirit in general, must have applied with special 
 force to the party of Peter. But besides this it must not be over- 
 looked how in 1 Cor. iii. 5, as well as in 2 Cor. xi. 15, the Apostle 
 speaks of BiaKovot Xpiarov. Without doubt the party of Peter 
 arrogated to itself the name Blukovoi, Xpuarov, and with regard to 
 this it must not be considered as accidental that the Apostle takes 
 up the question of BtaKovoi,, the true ministers of the Lord, in the 
 course of his strictures on the Corinthian parties, I Cor. iii. 5. 
 We thus see from the section I Cor. i. 12— iv. 24, how from the 
 beginning the Apostle never lost sight of this opposition, but deals 
 with it at first with a certain forbearance and self-restraint, and 
 only gradually passes from the indirect to the direct refutation of 
 his opponents. 
 
 This transition he makes 1 Cor. ix. 1, for here his polemic, 
 having treated hitherto of the parties of Paul and ApoUos, turns 
 to that of Cephas. ISTor does he avoid indicating this party by its 
 name, nor taking up his ground against it with the assertion that 
 he had the same rights with the rest of the Apostles, with the 
 brethren of the Lord, and specially with Cephas, ix. 5. 
 
 The polemic passes from the indirect to the direct, 1 Cor. ix. 1, 
 sqq., but does not reach its full severity till the second part of the 
 second Epistle, x. — xiii. Even here the Apostle has various things 
 to say before he comes to the direct attack on his opponents : we 
 see that it costs him a certain inward struggle to take this 
 extreme but also necessary step. He first discusses all he has to 
 say to the Corinthians themselves, though in all this he has his 
 opponents before his mind. Then when everything else is said, 
 and everything is ready, he attacks his opponents in the way we 
 have already seen. As this discussion proceeds to its climax, the 
 peculiar position of the Christ-party, with which it deals, comes 
 prominently forward. This partly is dealt with in its proper place, 
 as assigned to it at 1 Cor. i. 12, so far at least as it is distinguish- 
 able from the party of Peter. 
 
 Besides the existence of parties, which is the chief point of 
 
296 LIFE AND WOBK OV PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 which the Apostle never loses sight throughout the two Epistles, 
 there were in the Corinthian Church several other peculiar pheno- 
 mena of a nature more or less disturbing to the regulation of the 
 Christian life. "With respect to these phenomena the Apostle 
 explains himself for the most part in a very explicit manner, being 
 led to do so by questions which had been addressed to him in a 
 letter he had received from the Corinthians before his Epistle was 
 written. The chief subjects of this kind were the following : the 
 unchaste relations in which a member of the Corinthian Church 
 lived with his stepmother, giving rise to great scandal (chap, v.) 
 Connected with this was the immorality which was prevalent among 
 the Corinthian Christians, which the Apostle denounces more than 
 once, V. 9, sqq., vi. 1 5, sqq., 2 Cor. xii. 2 1 ; the practice of bringing 
 law disputes before Gentile judges, and even of prosecuting 
 Christians in their courts, vi. 2 ; the question as to the superiority 
 of married or celibate life (chap, vii.), as well as that of participation 
 in Gentile sacrificial feasts and the use of meat offered to idols, 
 chap. viii. ; the liberty which the women of the Corinthian Church 
 permitted themselves with regard to their head-dress in the 
 Christian assemblies, chap. xi. 1,^ sqq. \ an abuse connected with the 
 celebration of the Lord's Supper, xi. 17, sqq.; the difference of 
 opinion as to the value of the so-called \a\e2v 'yXa>crcraL<;J' especi- 
 ally in its relation to the 7rpo(p7]Teveiv, chap. xii. — xiv. ; and finally 
 the question as to the resurrection from the dead, which was denied 
 by some of the members of the Corinthian Church. All these 
 phenomena, and the questions stirred by them, give us a very clear 
 and vivid picture of the condition of the Corinthian Church ; yet 
 it would be most interesting to know more distinctly than we do how 
 the various parties were related to these various phenomena, and 
 how the state of parties in Corinth bore on them. All that we can 
 be sure of is this, that the Gentile Christian element had a great 
 
 ^ Cf. my "Beitrage zur Erklarimg der Korintherbriefe " in the Theol. Jahrb. 
 1852, p. 1. Der Zusammenhang von cap. vii. mit v. 1 — vi. 20, p. 15. Die An- 
 siclit des Apostels von der Ehe und der Sklaverei, cap. vii. p. 563. Die Frauen der 
 Korinthischen Gemeinde und die Schleiersymbolik des Apostels, 1 Cor. xi. 2-16. 
 
 ^ Compare the treatise mentioned at p. 16. 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 297 
 
 predominance, which was everywhere felt. And yet the Jiidaising 
 opponents of the Apostle were able to force their way into this 
 Church, and take up a strong position in it, so as to form this 
 energetic opposition which he himself considered so formidable. 
 
 The relation of the second Epistle to the first deserves to be 
 carefully attended to. It has been already remarked that the 
 polemic of the Apostle against those opponents with whom he 
 contends in the first Epistle is continued in the second, and that 
 the very strongest utterances with which he makes his directest 
 and most vehement attack on them are found in the last chapter 
 of the second Epistle. But all the stronger is the contrast between 
 the sharp and vehement tone of this last chapter, and the tone of 
 the first part of the Epistle, in which the Apostle betrays the 
 greatest uneasiness and apprehension about the reception of his 
 former letter, and about his whole relation to the Corinthians, and 
 labours with the utmost anxiety to secure for himself, by repeated 
 assurances of his love and sympathy, the confidence of the 
 Corinthians, which he fears is growing cold towards him. Different 
 theories have been advanced to explain this striking change of tone 
 in the second Epistle, but the chief question is, what reason the 
 Apostle could have had to bear such great uneasiness stud anxiety 
 as to the impression made by his first letter. The contents of our 
 first Epistle are thought not to furnish a sufficient reason for this 
 anxiety. This circumstance, as well as what is found in the two 
 Epistles about a mission not only of Timothy but also of Titus, a 
 matter in which they do not very well agree, has given rise to the 
 suspicion that our second Epistle does not stand in that close con- 
 nection with the first which is commonly supposed. " Our second 
 Epistle," it is maintained,^ " does not refer to the impression which 
 may have been produced by the first, but to the reception of a 
 letter which Titus conveyed, and which we no longer possess. In 
 fact there occur in our second Epistle several passages, such as ii. 
 3, 4, vii. 12, which, although they are generally referred directly to 
 
 •■ Compare Bleek, Erorteriingen Uber die Cor. Briefe, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1830, 
 iii. 627. 
 
298 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 the circumstances treated of in 1 Cor., still on closer inspection are 
 difficult to explain upon this theory, and of themselves would 
 plainly lead us to suppose that in the relations of the Apostle to the 
 Corinthians something more intervened between our two Epistles 
 than merely the news brought to the Apostle by Titus about the 
 effect produced by the first Epistle. The whole tone and character 
 of the reproof in 1 Cor. are not such as Paul's expressions here 
 would lead us to think of It is therefore highly probable that in 
 the Epistle mentioned in 2 Cor. ii. 3, the special matter here re- 
 ferred to occupied a larger proportion to the whole Epistle than 
 the passage in 1 Cor. about the incestuous person to the whole of 
 that Epistle. If therefore the tovto uvto, 2 Cor. ii. 3, really 
 referred to something which the Apostle had written with respect 
 to this matter, which of course is highly probable, we are led to 
 conclude that it does not apply to the first Epistle, but to a subse- 
 quent one, in which Paul had expressed himself on this subjecb 
 with much greater vehemence. It is also possible, of course, that 
 this verse does not refer to that incestuous person and the Apostle's 
 expression regarding him at all, but to some other matter of 
 which Paul had heard through Timothy, and of which he had 
 then spoken indignantly and sternly in his Epistle. What comes 
 afterwards, 2 Cor. iii. 5, does not necessarily oblige us to think of 
 the incestuous person ; but if we give up the idea of this reference 
 we must also resign the possibility of ascertaining exactly what the 
 special matter was, and can only surmise in general that some of 
 the commands of the Apostle had been flagrantly disregarded." 
 
 I cannot consider this opinion to be well grounded, and it seems 
 to me that what we know of the Apostle's character affords no 
 adequate reason for taking the relation of the two Epistles to each 
 other to be different from what has been commonly supposed. 
 We need only remember with what vehemence and indignation he 
 speaks of the occurrence mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 5, and how, as 
 soon as he has said what he had to say on the chief subject 
 of his letter, this is the first of the more special subjects to which 
 he addresses himself. The Apostle takes up this matter seriously 
 
Chap. II.] TEE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTBIANS 299 
 
 enough, and at the same time it so notoriously concerns one 
 particular individual, that it is against aU probability that the 
 individual who is spoken of in the same pointed way, 2 Cor. ii. 5,^ 
 should have been any other than the one referred to, 1 Cor. v. If 
 we consider, further, what the Apostle writes to the Corinthians 
 with regard to this individual, in the most solemn manner, with 
 all the emphasis of his apostolic authority, as his judicial sentence, 
 we can well understand what anxiety and care this affair must 
 soon after have occasioned him. To speak plainly : he had taken 
 a step which he himself must have regarded as a rash and over- 
 hasty one, and which, as it failed of its intended result, simply laid 
 him open to his opponents. Indeed, he afterwards retracted what 
 he had done, and adopted a course which was exactly the opposite 
 of what he had formerly distinctly said ought to be done. The 
 most natural sense of the passage in question, 1 Cor. v. 3, 1 can only 
 consider to be that given by the most recent commentators, namely, 
 that the Apostle thought he had the power, by virtue of the strength 
 of Christ which was present with him, to give over the criminal to 
 the disposal of Satan ; his sentence was to take effect by means of 
 a disease which should smite the offender at that moment in which 
 he should be solemnly expelled from the Christian communion by 
 the assembled Church, in which the Apostle himself would be 
 present in spirit to work the miracle. However we may take the 
 expression -irapaBovvai rm Sarava, the Apostle certainly declares a 
 double sentence, first a bodily sickness miraculously inflicted (for 
 nothing else than this can be meant by o\e9po<; t^? aapKoi), and 
 the excommunication spoken of in verses 2 and 1 3, for which the 
 Church was to be assembled. But neither of these two things, as 
 we see from the second Epistle, had happened. Neither had the 
 miraculous punishment occurred which the Apostle had threatened,^ 
 
 ^ He is called 6 toiovtos 2 Cor. ii. 7, as well as in 1 Cor. v. 5. 
 
 2 The passage 1 Cor. v. 4 contains a criterion of some interest by which to 
 judge of the alleged miracles of the Apostles. The consciousness of miraculous 
 power, the bvvanis tov Kvpiov, was certainly felt by the Apostles, and in this 
 consciousness they may have looked upon the specially remarkable results of their 
 ministry, the operations of their energy in action, as trq^iia, repara, and Svvdiiets. 
 
300 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part II. 
 
 nor had the Corinthians proceeded to the exclusion of the offender 
 from the Church. I feel myself obliged to agree with Eiickert's 
 explanation of the second passage touching on this matter, 
 2 Cor. ii. 6 ; that the Apostle declares himself content with the 
 punishment decreed by the Corinthians, and says he does not 
 require any graver punishment to be inflicted, which he could not 
 have said if the punishment which he had demanded had already 
 taken place. From ver. 10 it is clear that the 'xaplf^eadai did not 
 now originate with him, but had already been put in force without 
 his being consulted, so that now he comld only acquiesce in what 
 had taken place in order not to put himself in open conflict with 
 them by persistence in his former demands. The Corinthians 
 then had confined themselves to a mere reproof, and even this mild 
 punishment had been inflicted on the man not by the Church as a 
 whole but only by a part of it. If this was the state of affairs, 
 Eiickert very justly remarks, Paul must have found himself in a 
 very awkward position. His command had not been carried out ; 
 only a part of the community, although it may be the larger part, 
 had taken the matter to heart, the remainder, as might have been 
 expected from the feeling of the Church towards him, had not even 
 done this — his authority was greatly impaired. What was he to 
 do now ? Insist on his former orders ? He might be sure that he 
 should find no more obedience than before, and the scandal would 
 be aU the greater. He could not enforce obedience, and the affair 
 would only make a bad impression on all sides. There was nothing 
 for it but what prudence dictated in similar cases : to give the 
 matter another turn, by which an open breach might be avoided, 
 and the evil not indeed cured, but concealed until in better times 
 he should recover his proper position. This turn was to approve 
 of what had been done, even although it had been done with- 
 out his consent, to represent it as his own wish, and to bring 
 the whole matter under a Christian point of view. This is 
 
 Compare 1 Cor. xii. 10, 28, 2 Cor. xii. 12. But as in the case of 1 Cor. v. 4 this 
 conviction was distinctly expressed, and no miracle actually ensued, the same 
 may have taken place in other cases too. 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 301 
 
 what he now does, partly through the concession that the 
 punishment which the man had undergone may have been 
 sufficient, partly through the admonition to forgive him. This 
 account of the Apostle's position is undoubtedly correct ; and 
 the whole tone in which he wrote our Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 the restlessness and anxiety which it betrays, are thus very naturally 
 explained. He had taken a step the consequences of which he only 
 now clearly perceived.^ It must now have appeared very question- 
 able to him what its effect would be on his opponents.^ As we 
 see from the Apostle's own Epistle, they did not faD. to use the 
 occurrence as a handle to depreciate his authority. When he is 
 absent, said they, he can indeed make severe speeches and be full 
 enough of boasting and vain-glory, but when it comes to real action 
 he does not trust himself to be personally present (x. 10, 11 ; com- 
 pare iii. 1, V. 12.) Without doubt this was the reason which made 
 the Apostle so solicitous to vindicate himself, as he does in the 
 beginning of his Epistle, on account of his delay to undertake 
 his long-contemplated journey to Corinth. An Epistle written 
 under such circumstances must of course have a mainly apolo- 
 getic tendency, but the apology is by no means a merely personal 
 one ; it passes at once into more general considerations, and becomes 
 an apologetic examination of his apostolic office, which he re- 
 presents in its two aspects, as it brings salvation to some, and 
 works ruin to others, and shows to be superior to the ministry of 
 the Old Covenant, as the lofty experience which he himself had 
 had of it had taught him. Having worked out these ideas, and 
 conceived new confidence in the Corinthians, he turns with fresh 
 spirit and incisive logic to his opponents, with a view to arriving 
 
 iRuckert has no hesitation in saying with regard to 1 Cor. v. 5, "The 
 Apostle's line of conduct is simply passionate ; and, like other passionate acts, 
 could never bear any good result. And that he issued, to a Church in which his 
 authority was much lowered,' dictatorial commands which he had no means of 
 enforcing^thia was not wise." Who will blame the unprejudiced critic for saying 
 this? 
 
 2 The Apostle gives marked expression to this in 2 Cor. ii. 11 : tva ixfj nXfovcK- 
 Trieafiev vir6 Toi ^arava, ov yap avToi ra vo^jfiaTa ayvooi/iev. He is aware, then, 
 that his irapabovvai ra ^arava has harmed no one but himself. 
 
302 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 at a thorougli clearing up of liis relations to them. In no other of 
 the Apostle's Epistles are we allowed to look deeper into the pure 
 humanity of his character, and into the peculiarities of his 
 relations to the Churches, than in his second Epistle to the Coria- 
 thians. No other Epistle teaches us so much of his character, if 
 at least we do not suffer the genuine human traits which it contains 
 to be glozed over by false ideas of what we ought to find in it. 
 If we have traced the relation of 2 Corinthians to 1 Corinthians 
 correctly, there is no reason for supposing another lost Epistle to 
 the Corinthians besides that mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 9.^ 
 
 The Apostle had written to the Corinthians before the two 
 Epistles which we possess, as he himself says, 1 Cor. v. 9 ; but we 
 do not know anything further of this lost Epistle than what we 
 may gather from this passage. This missive cannot have been 
 of equal importance with our two Epistles — as the way in which 
 the Apostle discusses the subjects which fill up our first Epistle 
 does not allow us to suppose that there had been much communi- 
 cation between him and the Corinthians on these points before. 
 The composition of our two Epistles is commonly placed in the 
 years 57-59, in the period in which the Apostle, after leaving 
 Corinth, Acts xviii. 18, took up his residence for some time at 
 Ephesus, Acts xix. 1, xx. 1. There seems no doubt that in his 
 journey to Greece, Acts xx. 2, he visited Corinth again, and during 
 his residence there wrote the Epistle to the Eomans ; but whether 
 this visit was the second or third is not so easily decided, as in the 
 passages in the Epistles where the Apostle speaks of a journey to 
 Corinth, it is left doubtful whether the " third time " of which he 
 speaks is to be understood as referring to the journey, or to the in- 
 tention of taking it. In my opinion the latter is the more probable, 
 if we consider the connection in which the passages which bear on 
 the question stand to one another. When he says, 2 Cor. xii 14, 
 Ihov TpiTov TovTo eToifico'} e^m ekOelv Trpo? ii/j,a<;, Tpirov tovto may 
 
 1 What follows was added for the second edition. Compare the author's essay, 
 Beitrage ziir Erkliirung der Korintberbriefe 1. Die Keiseu des Ajjostels Paulus 
 naoh Korinth. Theol. Jahrb. ix. 139 sq. — Editor. 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE COBINTHIANS. 303 
 
 apply either to ixOeiv or to iToi/u,to<i e^^w, and therefore we do not 
 know whether the Apostle now for the third time resolved to go 
 to Corinth, or whether he was setting out on his third journey. 
 To clear up this point we must go back to the beginning of the 
 Epistle, where he also speaks of a visit to the Corinthians. 
 'E^ovXofirjv, he says, i. 15, tt/so? vixa<i ekOelv Trporepov, ivaBevrepau 
 xdpiv exnTe, etc. When he says he wished to go Trpdrepov, he 
 must mean that he had already formed a distinct plan of travel, 
 but wished to visit them before the occasion which it provided ; 
 and if the Corinthians were to have a Bevrepa %apt?, there must 
 have been one already, with reference to which this one would 
 be the second, and on which they might count in any case, even 
 apart from a BevTepa %a/3t?. If the Apostle journeyed direct from 
 Ephesus to Corinth, and from thence to Macedonia, the only way 
 in which he could add a Bevrepa %a/3t9 was by taking Corinth 
 again on his way back from Macedonia. He could not have done 
 it if he went to Macedonia first, and from Macedonia to Corinth, 
 since his route embraced only the three points, Ephesus, Corinth, 
 Macedonia. Thus we reach the result that the irpoTepov eK6elv 
 could only be the hi! vfiSiv Boekdelv e« MuKeSoviav. It was a 
 Bevrepa %a/3t?, since the ixdelv citto MaKsBovla^ of which he speaks 
 afterwards (though not as 'rraXi.v a-rro MaKeBovia<;, still as eXdelv 
 awo MaKeBovlat;) was already a part of the Apostle's plan, quite 
 in accordance with 1 Cor. xvi. 5. He still adheres to the original 
 plan of a journey by Macedonia to Corinth, only he intends, without 
 giving that up, to come at once straight from Ephesus to Corinth 
 and to go from there to Macedonia. Thus he had already resolved 
 twice to go to Corinth, and had indeed arranged for two visits 
 there (a BevTepa %«/}«) without either of these plans and intentions 
 having been carried out at the time of his writing to the Cor- 
 inthians, and this is the very reason which induces him to speak 
 of it. He wishes to remove the idea that it was owing to his 
 fickleness and want of purpose that he did not perform what he 
 undertook, and that his opponents could thus justly accuse him 
 (as they doubtless did) of a want of sincerity and of interested 
 
30-i LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 motives, which must go far to impair the coniidence the Corinthians 
 niight be disposed to have in his discharge of the apostolic ofiSce. 
 He protests against all those injurious inferences which might 
 be drawn from his non-appearance. We do not learn from him 
 here how often he had been in Corinth, or how many journeys 
 this one would have made ; he is not speaking of an actual 
 journey, but only of an intended one of plans and travel. It is 
 thought that precise information on this point is certainly given 
 where he gives his reasons for not going to CorintL "EKpiva Be 
 euavrm tovto, says the Apostle, 2 Cor. ii. 1, to firi iroKiv ev Xutti; 
 TTDo? v/j.a'i eXOelv; and nothing seems more simple than to conclude 
 that as the Apostle had already once been to Corinth ev \inrr], and 
 this cannot have been the case at his first visit, he must have been 
 twice at Corinth when he wrote our second Epistle. But where 
 can we find an appropriate time to which we may assign this 
 second journey 1 If he had been in Corinth for the second time, 
 for a reason which made his visit one ev Xvirri, before our Epistle 
 was written, we should expect to find some allusion to the circum- 
 stance in our first Epistle, where the fact of a prior letter having been 
 written is not left unmentioned. For we must remember that the 
 question is not merely whether the Apostle visited Corinth twice 
 or three times altogether, but further, what was the nature of the 
 second visit here alluded to. If he was in Corinth between the 
 time of his first visit and the despatch of the first Epistle, it must 
 have been ev Xvitt), that is, under circumstances which obliged him 
 to use some severity, and in fact to depart with the threat of taking 
 still harsher measures against the Corinthians if they did not 
 improve. But this theory makes the whole contents of our first 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, and the tone in which the Apostle 
 speaks of the whole condition of the Church and of its various 
 failings, simply impossible. Of what nature can those irregu- 
 larities have been, which had already taken place and had 
 disturbed the good understanding between the Apostle and the 
 Church 1 We have no alternative but to suppose that they were 
 irregularities of the same kind as those which he had to deal with 
 
Chap. II.] TSU EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 305 
 
 in such detail in our first Epistle. The detail and the earnestness 
 of his discussion of the various failings and weaknesses of the 
 Church in this Epistle, make it difficult to suppose that he had 
 already heen dissatisfied with the Corinthians for a reason not here 
 mentioned. The subjects that he deals with in our first Epistle 
 appear to have been just brought under his notice for his advice ; 
 indeed he says that this was the case. The circumstances and 
 relations have just arisen; he is speaking of them to the Cor- 
 inthians evidently for the first time. Of the parties into which 
 the Church was divided, he had first heard through the household 
 of Chloe (1 Cor. i. 11). He had only heard of the prevailing 
 immorality, and the particular case which seemed to require a 
 special intervention on his part, v. 1. The misunderstanding 
 which he has to correct, v. 9, in regard to the /xri crvvava/jiiyvvaOai 
 iropvoi^, an instruction which he had addressed to the Corinthians 
 in a letter previous to our first Epistle, could scarcely have arisen 
 if the subject had been treated of before by word of mouth. The 
 questions relating to married life, which he discusses in detail in 
 chap, vii., had been first raised in a letter from the Corinthians, vii. 1. 
 And as we may clearly see from the whole of the Apostle's discus- 
 sion of the subject that there has been no mention of these things 
 between him and the Corinthians before, so this is likewise obvious 
 with regard to all the other subjects on which, in the rest of his 
 Epistle, he either expresses his anger and disapprobation, or lays 
 down rules and directions. Nowhere do we meet with the slightest 
 indication that the Apostle had previously had cause to find fault 
 with the Corinthians on these or similar subjects ; that any differ- 
 ences had arisen between him and them ; that he had given any 
 advice which had not been followed, or uttered any threats which 
 had not been heeded. StiU less can we imagine a journey of this 
 kind to have taken place between our two Epistles. Our first 
 Epistle gives no hint of such an interval in the time preceding it 
 as would necessitate the supposition of a journey made by the 
 Apostle, in addition to those we are already acquainted with ; and 
 the second Epistle foUows so hard on the first, that nothing that 
 VOL. I. u 
 
306 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 took place between them, and is essential to the understanding of 
 the second, can have escaped our knowledge. But it must be 
 asked, is it so essential to make the words, 2 Cor. ii. 1, e:' Xv-n-y 
 and iraXiv refer so directly to each other, that we must think of a 
 prior journey ev Xvtttj, to be followed by a second one ev Xv-rrrfl 
 May we not suppose that the Apostle should properly have 
 written kxOoiv after TraXiv, but omitted it, including it in the 
 following eXOelvl No great exactness of expression is expected 
 in a letter, especially when the readers are familiar with the cir- 
 cumstances treated of, and do not need to have it all explained to 
 them. After what we have said, there appears to be no reason of 
 much weight why we should not take the rplrov tovto, 2 Cor. xiL 
 1 4, thus : — " Twice already have I proposed to myself to come to 
 you, but it was not possible to me to fulfil my intention, but now 
 that my thrice-formed design is about to be realised, I will declare 
 to you what attitude I shall assume towards you." On a casual 
 glance the passage xiii. 1, which begins with the words rpirov 
 TOVTO epxafiM Tpo<; vp.a'i, would seem to silence all doubts on the 
 subject of a third journey, but on a closer examination we find 
 that it gives the information about this journey of which we are 
 in quest. Why should we not construe those words to mean that 
 the Apostle is now for the third time on the point of visiting them ? 
 And if the passage where he speaks of his journey does not neces- 
 sarily suggest a second journey already made, but merely an 
 intention of making it, whUe the Epistle as a whole is meant to 
 excuse the Apostle for having meant to visit Corinth and not 
 having done so, does not all this show us at once what is to be 
 attested by the word of two or three witnesses ? In their literal 
 sense, these words are unintelligible ; but it is not unnatural to 
 suppose that the Apostle wishes to add strength to his statement 
 and says : — " If the principle of the Mosaic law be a sound one, 
 that what is attested by two or three witnesses is true and stands 
 before the law, then as I have now three times resolved to come 
 to you, it will now be true, it is the case, that my resolution will 
 soon be carried out." Those who have been able to accept my 
 
Chap. II.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 307 
 
 exposition of the subject up to this point as not only possibly, but 
 probably correct, will now be in a position to receive the last 
 statement in the passage, the Apostle's own assertion that he has 
 only been once at Corinth before, and is now coming for the 
 second time, as the authentic confirmation of the result to which 
 the other evidence has pointed. Even in point of grammar, the 
 words (B? Trapoiv to Bevrepov must be taken not of an actual presence 
 but of one imagined (cf. 1 Cor. v. 3). The Apostle is so eager to 
 exclude all room for doubt of his coming to Corinth immediately, 
 and to create the impression that his word is now to be realised 
 without faU, that though absent from them he seems to himself to 
 be present with them ; he is in Corinth for the second time, and 
 tells them, as present with them for the second time, yet absent, 
 what wOl infallibly take place. 
 
 Let us then reject the idea of a journey which has nowhere any 
 basis of evidence. When we have got rid of it, this whole episode 
 will appear to us much clearer and simpler, more natural, and' 
 more a living part of history. 
 
CHAPTEE III. 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE EOMAXS. 
 
 It is not merely in the order of time that the Epistle to the 
 Eomans comes immediately after those to the Corinthians : there 
 is also an inner progress from the latter to the former. Only from 
 the standpoint of the Epistle to the Eomans do we survey the rich 
 treasures of the spiritual life of which the Apostle was the deposi- 
 tary and the organ, and see how severe and well-reasoned is the 
 system in which he develops his Christian principle, how large 
 the world in which he moves, and the subjects that he deals 
 with. We have already had occasion to remark the relation in 
 which the Epistle to the Galatians and that to the Eomans stand 
 to each other, the one being the first sketch of a bold and profound 
 system as conceived in its characteristic and essential features, the 
 other the completed system, developed on all sides, and provided 
 with all necessary argument and illustration. This character of 
 the Epistle to the Eomans as a systematic work, dealing with a 
 massive body of thought, marks it off from the two Corinthian 
 Epistles, which are distinguished rather for the variety of their 
 contents, and their richness in suggestive and spiritual ideas, 
 arising out of, and illuminating, various relations of life. But in the 
 Epistle to the Eomans, we mark also an advance in the Apostle's 
 attitude towards that great opposing force, to resist and conquer 
 which became more and more the task of his apostolic activity. 
 His mission as Apostle to the Gentiles was not fulfilled till the 
 
Chap. III.] TEE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 309 
 
 absolute importance which Judaism claimed, a claim in which 
 Jewish Christianity sympathised with it, had been wrested from 
 it, both in principle and in all the consequences involved, and 
 Judaism shown to be of merely relative value. In the Epistle 
 to the Galatians he had emancipated Christianity from Judaism 
 to the extent of casting off the outward symbol of bondage, the 
 rite of circumcision, which the latter sought to impose upon the 
 former as the necessary condition of salvation. In the two 
 Epistles to the Corinthians, he had asserted the principle that the 
 call to, and the possession of, the Messianic salvation, were not 
 conditioned by the authority of the Apostles, who had been called 
 by Jesus himself : that he, the Gentile Apostle, was an Apostle 
 quite as much, and to as good effect as they. In the Epistle to 
 the Eomans his task is to remove the last remnants of Jewish 
 particularism, by showing that it is but a stage, a stepping-stone 
 to the universalism of Christianity, in which all nations should be 
 embraced. Jewish Christianity, which still maintained the ab- 
 solute importance of Judaism, had not been able to prevent the 
 rise in Gentile Christianity of a religious realm which lived 
 upon its own resources, and was free and independent of Judaism. 
 But the idea that Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity 
 were not only to exist side by side, that the latter was to assume 
 an immense preponderance over the former — this idea was one 
 which the religious consciousness of the Jewish Christians scarcely 
 allowed them to take in. And this seemed likely to be the 
 ultimate result of the apostolic activity among the Gentiles. As 
 the universalism of Christianity, in which all nations were 
 embraced without distinction, was realised in fact, the Messianic 
 salvation appeared to go altogether to the Gentiles; and the 
 contrast between the Jews, who continued in their unbelief, and 
 the Gentiles, who were more and more converted to the faith, 
 seemed to point to no other conclusion than that the Jews were 
 rejected and the Gentiles called. This is the Apostle's position in 
 the Epistle to the Eomans ; this is the theme which he works out 
 in that Epistle. To show this, however, we have to advance a view 
 
310 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 of the occasion and the purpose of his writing the Epistle, which 
 is radically different from the common one.^ 
 
 The origin and aim of the Epistle are generally determined from 
 the purely dogmatic point of view. Scholars have failed to inquire 
 carefully into the historical occasion and the circumstances in the 
 Eoman Church on which the Epistle proceeds, and to make these 
 the starting-point of their discussions ; as if the Apostle had had 
 no other motive for writing than a desire to give a connected and 
 comprehensive view of his whole scheme of doctrine, to furnish, 
 as it were, a compendium of the Pauline dogmatics in the form 
 of an Apostolic Epistle. With those who have given more pains 
 to the proper understanding of the Epistle, the opinion has pre- 
 vailed that there is no sufficient ground to believe that the Apostle 
 intended his Epistle mainly to put an end to local disputes, such 
 as Eichhorn^ and Hug^ suppose to have taken place between the 
 
 1 1 follow here my essay, Uber Zweck imd Veranlassung des Eomerbriefs, which 
 appeared in the year 1836 in the Tiib. Zeitschrift ftir Theologie, H. 3, p. 54. I 
 adhere to the view there advocated, as I first conceived it, and stOl hold it the 
 naore that I feel that those scholars who have noticed it have not estimated it 
 thoroughly or impartially. Riickert (Com. ilber den Br. P. au die R., second revised 
 edition, 1839, ii 366) spoke of devoting to it an examination in detail ; but I 
 have never heard of the appearance of such a work. Fritzsche (Pauli ad Eom, 
 Ep. ii. 1839, p. 238) noticed it, at least on Komans ix., but very cursorily. Nor 
 did Neander deal with the question thoroughly in his Planting and Training. 
 Mere expressions of dissent, such as those of de Wette (Kurze ErkL des Horn B. 
 third edition, 1841, p. 3, cf. Einleitung, p. 247), are of little value. If the 
 Apostle's indication of the occasion and purpose of his writing, i. 8-16, were as 
 clear, and the line of thought — of which the theme is given i. 17, and the discus- 
 sion occupies i. 18-viii. 39 — as distinct, as de Wette asserts, there would not be 
 room for much difference of opinion. But my essay shows that these passages 
 prove nothing against my view. Thus an essay iu which an original view is 
 propounded and furnished with proof, is simply thrown aside. Some outside 
 features are laid hold of and criticised, and that is all ; the verdict is passed 
 that the whole view is incorrect. But such a verdict can only be passed by such as 
 take a superficial view and do not see the difficulties which lie deeper; and who can 
 without compunction, neglect the more important bearings of an Epistle altogether! 
 (Thus the author in the first edition. For the second he subjected this whole 
 chapter to a thorough revision, making use of his second essay, " ifber Zweck und 
 Gedankengang des Romerbriefs (TheoL Jahrb. xvi. 60-108, 184-209).— .fc'ditor ) 
 
 2 Eiul. in's N. T. p. 214. 
 
 5 Einl. in's N. T, vol ii., second edition, p. 361. 
 
Chap. III.] THE EPISTLE TO THE BOMANS. 311 
 
 Judseo- and the Gentile-Christians. But the character and arrange- 
 ment of the first part of the teaching has been thought to unques- 
 tionably indicate a general aim, which did not arise from the 
 special circumstances of the Eoman Church, and which was to point 
 out the great importance of Christian doctrine, and to show how 
 it alone meets the needs of human nature, which neither heathen- 
 ism nor Judaism can satisfy.^ De Wette and Olshausen agree with 
 Tholuck in this view of the aim of the Epistle. De Wette's 
 position is, that the Apostle desired to exert what influence could 
 be transmitted in writing, on this Church, which must have been 
 so important in his eyes, and to set before it in a connected form 
 the doctrine which was the distinguishing feature of his gospel, 
 namely, that salvation was to be attained only through faith, and 
 not through the works of the law. He wished to set forth the 
 Christian faith before the eyes of the capital of the world, as the 
 only way of salvation for the whole world, both Gentile and Jew ; 
 to represent the Christian revelation as the revelation for the 
 whole world. The Epistle to the Eomans is the only epistle of 
 the Apostle in which he sets himself to expound his doctrine con- 
 nectedly, and in detail, while in the other epistles he is concerned 
 with special circumstances, with doubts, errors, questions, that had 
 come before him, and merely presupposes his doctrinal system. 
 This doctrine of faith as the only way of salvation is here ex- 
 pounded, not as opposed to the errors of Judaeo-Christianity, as in 
 the Epistle to the Galatians, but as opposed to Judaism. He had 
 less opposition to expect from the Gentile Christians ; what he had 
 to contend with was the self-assertion of Judaism, which was much 
 in favour at the time, and had sufficient influen .e to prejudice the 
 Gentiles against Christianity.^ Olshausen insists stiU more than De 
 Wette that the representation of the nature of the Gospel in the 
 
 1 Compare Tholuck in the first four editions of his Commentary. This expo- 
 sition, with continuous extracts from the exegetical writings of Fathers and 
 Reformers, first appeared in 1824, and marks an epoch in the history of the 
 exposition of the Epistle. 
 
 2 Kurze, Erklarung des Briefs au die Romer. Leipzig, 1841. Third edition 
 Introduction, p. 2. 
 
312 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 Epistle to the Eomans is a purely objective one, and has in view not 
 the special question between Judseo and Gentile Christianity, which 
 had arisen within the Church itself, but the larger question between 
 Jew and Gentile. According to him the whole exposition is objec- 
 tive in tone, and there is no more than a merely cursory reference 
 to any minor point : the great object before the writer's mind is the 
 truth of the Gospel. But this truth found itself by its very nature 
 in contradiction with all kinds of errors, and to this extent these do 
 appear in the Epistle ; yet the Apostle's wisdom as a teacher led 
 him to begin with presenting such a view of the Gospel that the 
 corrective of the errors which Christians must encounter was 
 suggested spontaneously and at once.^ There is no special aim 
 whatever, but a desire to present the Gospel to the Eoman 
 Christians in its natural relation to the law, and in its practical 
 consequences. The Judseo-Christians are not attacked ; points of 
 difference with them, such as are clearly referred to in the Epistle 
 to the Galatians, are not taken up here.^ Multitudinous as the 
 recent commentaries on the Eomans are, we find in none of them 
 any account of the object of the Epistle further than this general 
 one, which is necessarily blind to the special circumstances of the 
 case. Differences of expression do occur ; one writer, for example, 
 says that " the main object of the Epistle was to confirm the Eoman 
 Christians in their new faith, and to exhort and encourage them 
 to work out the Christian ideal on all its sides, by contemplating 
 the necessity and grandeur of the scheme of salvation revealed 
 in the Gospel, its harmony with the divine character and with 
 the earlier revelations, and also the sad results of heathen super- 
 stition, and of the abuse of the law through sin, in contrast with 
 the ideal life in the Spirit of the true Christian."^ Some have 
 
 > This is the extreme point of the purely dogmatic view. De Wette allows 
 the contention against Judaism, but here no direct antithetical reference whatever 
 is allowed. 
 
 ^ Der Brief des Ap. P. au die Romer. Konigsberg, 1835, p. 50, 44. 
 
 ^ Thus Reich, Versuoh einer ausftihrliohen ErklSrung des Briefs P. au die R. 
 Gbttingen, 1833, p. 73. Compare KoUner, Comm. zu dem Br. des Ap. P. au die 
 R. Darmstadt, 1834, p. xliv. Glockler, der Br. des Paulus au die R. Frank- 
 fort a. M., 1834, p. xxii. Pritzsche, Pauli ad Rom. eiiist. Hal. Sax., 1836, i. p. xxx. 
 
Chap. III.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 313 
 
 felt that some concessions were due to the opinion advanced by 
 me in a contrary direction, or at least that it ought to be mentioned, 
 yet in these cases the dogmatic point of view is not in the least 
 departed from. On the contrary, the greater pains are taken to 
 smoothe down and gloze over all the points and comers, which one 
 might suppose to afford some clew to the Epistle's connection with 
 the concrete circumstances in which it originated. The dogmatic 
 view is not to yield one step to the historical, lest the position of 
 an Epistle such as that to the Eomans should be impaired, and the 
 Lutheran forensic process of justification, which it is of such 
 moment to maintain in its integrity, suffer from the shaking of 
 its great buttress.-^ 
 
 "Whether this theory is intrinsically probable, or whether the 
 Epistle does not, with aU its seeming want of any distinct indica- 
 tion of its historical occasion, yet afford some data which may be 
 sufficient to shed some light on it in this respect, this is the ques- 
 tion to which we have first of all to address ourselves. 
 
 The analogy of those Epistles with which alone the Epistle to 
 the Eomans can be properly compared, does not favour the 
 common view. The Epistle to the Galatians and those to the 
 Corinthians, the only ones which we are at liberty to regard as 
 types of what Pauline Epistles are, give us a very different notion 
 of how the Apostle came to write an Epistle. What led him to 
 
 ' In this sense Lear Philippi, the chief representative of the stiflBy orthodox 
 dogmatic view of the Epistle, in his Commentary, second edition, p. 14 : — " We 
 can conceive no other opposition to the Pauline universalism but that which we 
 know to have been conducted by the Judaeo-Christian false teachers and sects. 
 This is the only opposition with which the Apostle contends in the Epistle to 
 the Eomans ;"he contends with the Jewish righteousness by works, not against 
 the exclusion of the heathen world from Christianity ; and against the Jewish 
 righteousness by works, not that of the Judaeo-Christian portion of the Koman 
 Church. Had the Jewish Christians of Eome been guilty of this tendency, he 
 would have attacked them on that ground, as he attacked the false teachers of 
 Galatia, and rebuked the GaMian Churches ; and no considerations, of whatever 
 kind, would have induced the Apostle of the Gentiles to pass lightly over this 
 tendency, one which gnawed at the very root of the Gospel." But this would 
 still be true if the Roman Church had been addicted not to the errors of Galatia 
 but to the Jewish particularism which I have described. 
 
314 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 write these ones were special circumstances and needs. Nor was 
 it that he used these as a peg on which to hang a doctrinal treatise 
 which he had in his mind already ; it is the imperious pressure of 
 circumstances which calls and forces him to write, at the risk of 
 seeing his work destroyed. We cannot but suppose that there was 
 something of this sort in the case of the Epistle to the Eomans ; 
 and here we must wonder at the bias which commentators have 
 displayed in estimating the relation of the two great sections of 
 the Epistle, chaps, i.-viii. and ix.-xi., to each other. If we set out 
 with supposing that the main drift of the Epistle and the Apostle's 
 aim in writing it are to be discovered in the dogmatic part with 
 which he begins it, that the order of thought, that is to say, in 
 which the Epistle originated in his mind, has been exactly re- 
 produced in its outward form, that is just placing ourselves from 
 the very beginning at the dogmatic point of view for the interpre- 
 tation of the Epistle. It is thought that the dogmatic contents, 
 as presented to us in the first eight chapters, must have been what 
 the Apostle started from ; this was the germ from which the whole 
 system of the Epistle was developed. Everything else, and par- 
 ticularly what we find in the chapters ix.-xL, is secondary and 
 subordinate to that, the main part of the Epistle, and was added to 
 it after the true theme had been fuUy discussed, as an inference 
 resrdting from it, and a practical application. Thus the Epistle 
 would be a complete whole even without this second pait, its maiu 
 idea being already fully worked out, and the end attained which 
 the Apostle designed it to further. By some commentators, 
 specially Tholuck, p. 341, and De Wette, p. 4, this section is ex- 
 pressly called a historical corollary, an appendix in which the 
 Apostle sought to show the consequences which naturally arose 
 from the doctrine he had already propounded, namely, the exclusion 
 of the unbelieving Jews from the Christian salvation; and this 
 idea may have suggested itself to him at this point, when his 
 discussion was completed and he cast his eye over it again. This 
 is the ordinary view of the relation of the two parts of the Epistle 
 to each other, and the question may weU be asked whether the 
 
Chap. III.] THE EPISTLE TO THE BOMANS. 315 
 
 very reverse of this relation may not be more correct, and whether 
 this view of the Epistle would not give us a much more satisfactory 
 account both of the aim and drift of the work, and of the historical 
 relations out of which it arose. On this view we should find in 
 these three chapters the germ and centre of the whole, from which 
 the other parts sprang ; and we should take our stand on these 
 three chapters in order to enter into the Apostle's original concep- 
 tion, from which the whole organism of the Epistle was developed, as 
 we have it especially in the first eight chapters. For this purpose 
 we have first to examine the contents of the three chapters, ix.-xi. 
 In these chapters the Apostle finds an answer to the question, 
 how it has come to pass that so great a part of the Jewish people, 
 the people chosen by God of old and the object of all the divine 
 promises, did not participate in the Messianic salvation, how it 
 was that the Gentiles occupied the place which should have been 
 filled by God's own people ? The Apostle's answer to this question 
 consists in the following propositions : — 1. In these things the 
 important point is not natural descent, but spiritual sonship of God 
 and election by his free grace. As not aU who are born Jews 
 belong to the true people of God, so God calls his people from 
 among the Gentiles as weU ; for the extending of salvation is a 
 free gift of divine grace, and thus the way to obtain the salvation 
 that is in Christ is not that vofjLo<; BiKaiocrvvT)'; which the Jews 
 followed after, but the BtKaioa-vvr] sk Trca-Teca which is as open to 
 the Gentiles as to the Jews (chap, ix.) 2. In respect of the i/o/io? 
 SiKaioa-vvr}i; which God has set up, which is hiKavoavvq ek ■n-ia-Tea^, 
 the Jews cannot claim the divine salvation as a right, and it is 
 their own fault that they do not participate in it. For salvation 
 can only come through faith in the preaching of the Gospel, in 
 which respect there is no difference between Jew and GentUe 
 (x. 12), but the Jews have not all listened to the Gospel nor 
 beUeved it (chap, x.) 3. In spite of all this the promises made 
 by God to the Jewish nation are not absolutely unfulfilled, and 
 God has not absolutely cast away his people. Not only is there 
 already a remnant by the election of grace (\et/i/ia kut eKkoyTjv 
 
316 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 ')(dpiTo<;, xi. 5) in those who do believe, but more, the hardness and 
 blindness in which so many Israelites still remain with respect to 
 the Gospel is to be regarded as a merely temporary thing, and God 
 does not repent his calling ; all Israel will still be saved some time. 
 The rejection of a part of the Israelites, or their present unbehef 
 of the Gospel, serves only to exalt the divine grace. The place of 
 the unbelieving Jews has in the meantime been occupied by the 
 believing Gentiles ; their TrapaTrrafia is rj acorrjpta ro2<; edveaiv, 
 their 'rrapa-n-Tasfia is liKovTO^ Koafiov, their rfTTrj/ia, ■rr7^x)iiT0<; edvav 
 (xi. 11, 12). Divine grace is glorified with regard to the whole, 
 as it becomes more manifest how it is part of God's plan to admit 
 the Gentiles to his grace (TrcojO&Jcrt? uiro fiepov<; tw Icrparfk yeyovev, 
 a'^pi<; ov TO irXrjpmixa tcov eOvwv eccreXdj), ver. 25). Thus what 
 is loss on the one side is on the other gain. On this view, more- 
 over, it is still open to hope that though now departed from God 
 the Jews will yet be saved. For if the Jews are jealous of the 
 grace of God which the Gentiles have obtained, this jealousy must 
 provoke them to seek that grace themselves (xi. 11, 14). 
 
 When we look at this whole section and the points of the 
 argument as we have stated them, and reflect that the subject of 
 which it treats is both the relation of Judaism and heathenism to 
 each other, and the relation of both to Christianity, and when we 
 further consider the force and earnestness which the Apostle ex- 
 pends upon the subject, as is very manifest even in the touching 
 words with which he takes up the question ( . . . Xinri] fiot etni 
 fieyaXr), Kau aobaXei-irTO'; ohvvr) ttj KapBla fiov "qvyo^rfv yap avTOi 
 eya avadefia elvai wrro rov Xpiarov xnrep tS)v dBeX(f>wv fiov, rS)v 
 <7vyy evSiv /xou Kara crapKo), it certainly appears that he cannot 
 have devoted so large a part of his Epistle to answering this 
 question without some special outward reason prompting him to 
 do so, such as may have arisen out of the circumstances of -the 
 Church at Eome. And what can this occasion have been ? We 
 cannot but think that it must have been what was opposed to the 
 Apostle's great idea in this section, the objection that was raised 
 to the participation of the Gentiles in the grace of the Gospel, or 
 
Chap. III.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 317 
 
 against the Pauline universalism considered in the results to which 
 it led. It must have been the great religious difficulty which had 
 such deep root in the consciousness of both Jews and Judseo- 
 Christians, that as long as Israel did not enter upon this grace as 
 a nation, as God's chosen people, the admission of the Gentiles to 
 it was an encroachment on their rights, a positive injustice to them, 
 and a falsification of the promises which God had made to the 
 Jews, his own people. The leading idea of the whole discussion, 
 the object in which both sides alike are interested, is the theocratic 
 primacy of the Jewish nation, the absolute superiority which they 
 claimed to possess above all other nations, and which they saw 
 passing away from them irrevocably under the influence of the 
 Pauline universalism. In order to grasp the significance of this 
 (question, we must make clear to ourselves the stage which Paulinism 
 had now reached in the development of its anti-Judaistic contest, 
 and how different the position is which the Apostle occupies here 
 from that which he occupied when he composed his Epistles to the 
 Galatians and Corinthians. We have here no longer the earliest 
 conflict where.no compromise seemed possible, where the opposi- 
 tion offered by Judaism was put forward in its most material and 
 repulsive form, in an absolute demand of circumcision. Nor have 
 we the personal question of the Corinthian Epistles, where the 
 Apostle had to defend himself against attacks on his apostolic 
 authority. In the Epistle to the Eomans all this is past and 
 settled, and the question appears in a totally different form. In fact 
 the Apostle writes here in a different tone ; he is no longer con- 
 tending with opponents whose hostility excites him to bitter attacks 
 on them ; he turns to his readers with confidence, to speak to them 
 of a question which he knows that they regard as he does, as a 
 very serious matter, closely pertaining to salvation, and not to be 
 thought of without deep concern. He knows that in them he is 
 addressing a Church which is more likely than others to understand 
 him and agree with him. Every subordinate, special, personal 
 question being left out of view, the ultimate and by far the most 
 important problem was simply. What is Judaism ? What advan- 
 
318 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 tage does it possess, if the distinction between heathenism and 
 Judaism be completely removed in the nniversaUsm of Pauline 
 Christianity ? As things then were, this must have been a matter 
 of most serious consideration for the more liberal class of Judaists. 
 We have to remember that this is the last of the apostolic epistles, 
 and was written at a time when the Apostle was just about to take 
 a step which could not fail to have momentous consequences, by 
 travelling to Jerusalem. The time called for a decision. The 
 Apostle had resolved to bring the controversy between Judaism 
 and Paulinism to a point, and to make a bold, cast for reconcihation 
 and unity by being personally present at Jerusalem, where Judaism 
 had its headquarters. At such a time, and with such plans working 
 in his head, he felt himself impelled to lay his views before the 
 Church at Eome, not merely as the most considerable church of 
 the western world, but as that one in which he thought he would 
 find most appreciation for his views, and most readiness to attend 
 to discussions such as the position of affairs suggested. After the 
 many years of the Apostle's ministry, great numbers of Gentiles 
 had embraced the Christian faith, whUe the number of Jews who 
 were converted formed a very trifling proportion to the nation as a 
 whole ; and thus the very condition on which the Messianic faith 
 of the Jewish Christians was based, namely, that the fulfilment of 
 the old promises made to their nation had come about in Jesus, 
 appeared not to have been fulfilled. How could he be the Messiah 
 of the nation if the nation did not believe in him, nor seem at aU 
 likely to do so, and if the respective proportions of Gentile and 
 Jewish Christianity made it clear that what the Messiah was to 
 bring had gone far more to the Gentiles than to the Jews ? Let it 
 not be forgotten that though they did not desire the exclusion of 
 the Gentiles from the Messianic fellowship, the Jewish Christians 
 could never consent to abandon the primacy which as Jews they 
 possessed over the Gentiles. Either, then, this glaring disproportion 
 which so conflicted with the old promises must lead them to 
 renounce their faith in Jesus as the Messiah altogether, or they 
 must have serious scruples as to the mode in which the Gentiles 
 
Chap. III.] tBE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 319 
 
 had been called to Christianity. What had swollen the numbers 
 of the converts from heathenism to such an extent that all the 
 advantages of the Messianic community appeared to accrue to the 
 Gentiles at the Jew's expense, but the easy terms of admission to 
 that community which had followed the Apostle's declaration of 
 the abolition of the law ? Though circumcision was no longer 
 demanded, there should not have been such a complete dispensation 
 from all the requirements of the law as the Apostle's doctrine of 
 faith involved. The more liberal-minded Jewish Christians would 
 argue in this way, who had given up many of the prejudices of 
 Judaism to which others still clung, but could not get over the 
 formidable difficulty which arose from the collision of that con- 
 ception of the world, which was based on the old national promises, 
 with the actual state of the world as it then appeared. And the 
 liberal and conciliatory attitude of the Jewish Christians, so 
 different from that of their party generally, made it the more 
 incumbent on the Apostle to do something to meet their diffi- 
 culties, which certainly struck at the very root of the relation 
 between Judaism and Christianity, and had the closest bearing on 
 his conception of the latter. 
 
 The view that the great point on which the controversy between 
 Judaism and Paulinism turned, was the claim of primacy with 
 which the Jewish Christians, as born Jews, confronted the Gentiles 
 and Gentile Christians ; and that this was the great stumbling- 
 stone which lay between even the best of them and any friendly 
 approach to Paulinism, this view is not without direct evidence. 
 It is confirmed by a curious phenomenon in the Acts, which is 
 closely connected with the peculiar PauHno-apostolic tendency of 
 that work. How is it that in its apologetic narrative of the 
 Apostle Paul's labours, it is always careful to remark that the 
 Apostle preached the Gospel to the Jews first, and only after the 
 Jews had rejected him and his Gospel, as they everywhere did, 
 turned to the Gentiles ? It is certainly very striking to observe 
 the consistency with which the Acts give the Jews the priority, 
 and makes the Apostle's practice conform to the maxim put in 
 
320 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 his mouth, xiii. 46, where he says to the Jews, v/jlIv tjv dvajKalov 
 •jrpwTOV \a\ri9rjvai rov Xdyov rov @eov' erreihr} 8e airtodeLaoe avrov, 
 Kol ovK d^iov<; Kpivere eavTov<; tjJ? alcovcov foj^?, tSou <Trpe^ofj,e6a 
 eU Ta eOvq. Even in Damascus the Apostle at once appears in 
 the synagogues after his conversion, and seeks with all his might 
 to convince the Jews of Damascus that Jesus is the Messiah ; the 
 consequence is, however, that he is obliged to escape from Damascus 
 in order to avoid the machinations of the Jews (Acts ix. 20, sq) 
 How this is to be harmonised with the Apostle's own statement, 
 2 Cor. xi. 32, that he fled from the persecution of the ethnarch of 
 king Aretas, we need not inquire ; but it will scarcely be altogether 
 fortuitous that the author of the Acts names the Jews as the 
 party whom the Apostle had to fear. That on his first visit to 
 Jerusalem after his conversion, the Apostle spent his time there 
 in public preaching, is inconsistent both with his own assertion 
 that he went to Jerusalem for a totally different purpose, and with 
 the short duration of his stay there (Gal. L 18). But the Acts 
 represents him as preaching the Gospel with all boldness, and 
 especially holding disputations with the Hellenists. The Jews, 
 however, laid plots against him here too, and this was the reason 
 of his removing to Tarsus (Acts ix. 28). In another passage of 
 the Acts (xxii. 1 8), in the speech which the Apostle delivers to 
 the Jews just before his arrest, we are told of an ecstatic vision 
 which he had in the temple on the occasion of that visit to Jeru- 
 salem, in which Jesus appeared to him and commanded him to 
 leave Jerusalem at once, because the Jews there would not receive 
 his, their former persecutor's, testimony for Jesus. On this account 
 Jesus says he is sent far off to the Gentiles. At that time then, 
 according to the Acts, he did not regard himself as an Apostle to 
 the Gentiles. When he made his first missionary journey some 
 time afterwards, he everywhere visited the synagogues of the Jews 
 first (xiii. 5, 14, xiv. 1), and though he met Gentile proselytes 
 there, his discourses were addressed exclusively to the Jews 
 (xiii. 15-41), and he did not go to the Gentiles till something, 
 happened which determined him to do so. This dutiful regard 
 
OuAP. III.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 321 
 
 for the Jews appears most strikingly in xiii. 42-52. In the sjna- 
 gogue of Antioch in Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas had preached the 
 Gospel with good effect to the Jews and proselytes. When 
 the Jews saw the whole people crowding to the Apostles, they 
 raised an opposition to them. The Apostles then boldly declared 
 that it was necessary that the Word of God should be preached 
 first to the Jews ; but seeing they put it from them and judged 
 themselves unworthy of eternal life, they now turned to the 
 Gentiles. When the Gentiles heard this, it is said they were 
 glad, and glorified the Word of the Lord, and those who were 
 ordained to eternal life believed. We must conclude from this 
 passage that if the Jews had not taken up a position of hostility 
 to the Apostles, the Gentiles would not have received the Gospel, 
 eagerly as they were looking for it (48), and Paul would have 
 remained an Apostle of the Jews (the fact that there were pros- 
 elytes from heathenism in the Jewish synagogues would not have 
 made him an Apostle of the Gentiles, the opposition of e6vri to 
 irpoffrjXvToi shows us this : compare w. 46 and 47 with 43). Now 
 is it credible that the Apostle's aTrocroXri et? to. edvrj originated in 
 a fortuitous occurrence like this, that this was needed in order that 
 the Gospel should reach the many Gentiles who were prepared to 
 receive it ? Yet this scene repeats itself again and again, as in the 
 section immediately following this one. The Gospel was preached 
 to the Gentiles in Lystra of Lycaonia, but only because the 
 Apostles had been expelled from Iconium by the unbelieving 
 Jews, chap. xiv. This strikes us even more in xviii. 1, sq., where 
 we are told of the foundation of the Church at Corinth. The 
 Apostle first attached himself to the Jew Aquila, who, with his 
 wife Priscilla, had just come to Corinth from Italy, and spoke in 
 the synagogTie every Sabbath, so as to convert both Jews and 
 Greeks. But when the Apostle's companions, Silas and Timothy, 
 who had remained behind in Macedonia, arrived, he began to insist 
 upon the evidence that Jesus was the Messiah. As the Jews 
 opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook the dust off his 
 raiment (cf. xiii. 51), and said to them, " Your blood be upon your 
 
 VOL. I. X 
 
322 LIFE ANI) WORK OF PAUL. [Paet II. 
 
 own heads ; I am clean : from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles," 
 and with these words he took up the other side, and entered into 
 the house of a certain Justus who worshipped God, and whose house 
 adjoined the synagogue. Here, as well as in the former passage, it 
 is obviously the opposition of the Jews that gives the signal for 
 the bold resolution to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Though 
 Gentiles had been converted previously, as well as Jews (ver. 4), yet 
 this was done in the synagogue, and in such cases the Jewish 
 synagogue did not cease to be the road through which the Gentiles 
 approached the Gospel. It was felt that some warrant must be 
 found ui external circumstances for discarding this troublesome 
 restriction, and so Paul becomes pressed in spirit after the arrival 
 of Silas and Timothy in Corinth, and devotes himself to the 
 preaching of the Gospel with redoubled energy, for no apparent 
 end but to excite that opposition which would make it permissible 
 to disregard the Jews altogether and carry the Gospel directly to 
 the GentUes. What good purpose could be served by such a mode 
 of action ? It could have no effect, of course, on the unbelieving 
 Jews, and as for the Jews who believed, it might very easily, 
 especially if the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles was 
 offensive to them, cause them to fall away again from the faith 
 altogether. And if there was no fear of this, why wait for an 
 occasion to be given by the unbelieving Jews ? Surely the view 
 of his aTToaroXr] eh ra eOvT), which this would imply, is not worthy 
 of the Apostle. Either he was convinced that it was according to 
 God's will that he should preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, or 
 not. If he had this conviction, he could never leave the question, 
 whether he should enter on his apostleship to the GentQes or not, 
 to be decided by the accident of certaia Jews raising opposition 
 and strife against him. Even if no act of open hostility occurred, 
 there could be no doubt that the great majority of Jews regarded 
 the Gospel with the utmost aversion. If he had not this convic- 
 tion, no chance occurrence could have formed it for him. And 
 when we consider how firmly the Apostle held his principles, and 
 his thorough-going decision in applying them, how can we ever 
 
Chap. Ill] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 323 
 
 imagine thatin the most important question of his apostoUc career he 
 could content himself with such half measures as this ? The author 
 of the Acts must have thought this a somewhat important point 
 for the end he has in view, as he comes back to it again and again. 
 The procedure of Corinth is repeated at Ephesus, where the Apostle 
 went after leaving Corinth, and made a considerable stay, xix. 8, sq. 
 He visited the synagogue and spoke boldly, in order to convert 
 men to the kingdom of God. But when some (or perhaps rtvh 
 means more definitely certain persons, namely, Jews, their mode 
 of action being now so well known that it is not necessary to 
 specify them by name) were hardened, and would not believe, but 
 spoke evil of the movement before the multitude, he departed from 
 them and separated his disciples, and spoke daily in the school of 
 one Tyrannus, for two years, with such success that aU the inhabi- 
 tants of Asia, both Jews and Greeks, heard the doctrine of the 
 Lord. In this case also we find a a-KXrjpweaOai koI iireiOeiv, a 
 KUKoXoyelv rrjv oBov, even evwircov tov irXridbv's, before the public, 
 as if to certify to all men and provide incontrovertible evidence 
 against the Jews : aU this takes place before the Apostle enters 
 upon his fuU apostolic activity and begins to work as an Apostle 
 of the Gentiles. This scene repeats itself once more at the close 
 of the Acts. This time it is in Eome, a circumstance which makes 
 the line of action so steadily attributed to the Apostle of more 
 moment for our present purpose. When the Apostle arrived at 
 Eome, xxviii. 1 7, the first thing he did was to summon the chief 
 men of the Jews, in order to put himself right with them as to the 
 cause of his imprisonment. The reason of his becoming a prisoner 
 in the hands of the Eomans at Jerusalem was not, he says, that he 
 had committed any offence against his people or the customs of their 
 fathers. The reason of his imprisonment was the hope of Israel 
 {ie. the belief in a Messiah, which he held in common with all his 
 fellow-countrymen). The Jews assure him that they have heard 
 nothing against him from Judea, and express a wish to hear his 
 opinion of this sect (Christianity) which, they knew, was every- 
 where spoken against. On an appointed day they came to his 
 
324 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 lodging; and the Apostle sought to persuade them concerning 
 Jesus out of the law of Moses and the prophets, in a discourse 
 which lasted from morning to evening. Some believed his words, 
 and some did not believe. As they were leaving him in this divided 
 state of opinion, the Apostle addressed to them this one word : — 
 " WeU spake the Holy Ghost by the prophet Esaias to our fathers, 
 saying. Go unto this people, and say. Hearing ye shall hear, and 
 not understand ; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive : for the 
 heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of 
 hearing, and their eyes have they closed ; lest they should see with 
 their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, 
 and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known 
 therefore unto you," the Apostle concludes, " that the salvation of 
 God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." The 
 practical point to be led up to by this whole conference with the 
 Jews at Eome is evidently this last declaration. The step which the 
 Apostle was about to take in preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles 
 was to be justified by the opposition of the Jews which had preceded 
 it. But there is an obvious want of logic in the sequence of the 
 story ; the opposition of the Jews is not even represented as con- 
 sisting in obstinate unbelief, it is merely that they were not yet 
 convinced by the arguments they had heard, and is obviously a 
 mere pretext to give some colour of justice to a step which seemed 
 to be unjustifiable without it. And this representation of what 
 took place is manifestly irreconcilable with what we learn from the 
 Epistle to the Eomans of the state of the Eoman Church. 
 
 One of the great merits of Olshausen's Commentary on this Epistle 
 is that it draws attention to the great difficulty which this passage 
 of the Acts presents when regarded in the light of the Epistle. 
 Olshausen very properly remarks that this has not been sufficiently 
 considered in discussing the aim of the Epistle. " If," he says,^ 
 " we adopt the common view of the condition of the Church of 
 Eome at the time when the Epistle was written, then Paul's experi- 
 ence in the capital is quite unintelligible. The Eoman Church is 
 1 Op. oit., Introd. p. 45. 
 
Chap. III.] THE EPISTLJE TO THE BOMANS. 325 
 
 held to have teen divided into the two parties of Gentile and 
 Jewish Christians. The stricter Jewish Christians are said to have 
 wished to keep up the outward observance of the Mosaic law, with 
 its circumcision, its Sabbath, etc. The Gentile Christians, on the 
 contrary, had asserted their freedom from all this. If this was the 
 case, must we not assume that the Eoman Jewish Christians 
 remained attached to the Eoman synagogue ? The Jewish 
 Christians in Jerusalem frequented the Temple and did not 
 renounce the Jewish religion, and neither would the Jewish 
 Christians of Rome separate themselves from the synagogue. But 
 is not this supposition completely disproved by the story of the 
 Acts, xxviii. 1 7, sq., where the chiefs of the synagogue are entirely 
 ignorant of Christianity ? They could have no reason for con- 
 cealing their knowledge of it if they did know of it, and the only 
 conclusion left is that the heads of the Jews actually knew nothing 
 about the Christians in Eome. Paul's speech, xxviii 17-20, is 
 evidently given in a condensed form ; he had doubtless spoken of 
 his faith in Christ, and the ek-irh rov 'la-parjX refers to this. The 
 Jews reply : Trepl tj}? alpeatw^ rauT??? yvacrTov eemv r^fiw on 
 iravTaxov avriKeyerai. Could people speak in this way of a sect 
 which they saw before them, and of the struggles and divisions of 
 which they themselves were witnesses ? It will be hard to make 
 this seem probable. And then the interview with Paul, xxviii. 
 23, sq., when he expounds the Scriptures to them the whole day 
 long, in order to convince them of the Messiahship of Jesus, and 
 the division which arose among the Jews in consequence. On the 
 ordiaary theory this must have been the merest juggle ; the Jews 
 must have known of Jesus and decided against him long before. 
 Only in towns where no churches existed do we find the Jews so 
 open to conviction as they appear here ; where a Church had been 
 formed and they had become acquainted with the Gospel, they would 
 hsten to no Christian preaching. But there must have been a 
 Church at Eome, and we have to seek for some explanation of this 
 curious attitude which the Jews assumed towards it." 
 
 The question is boldly and distinctly put, and we look for the 
 
326 LIFE AND WOBK OF PAUL. [Pakt II. 
 
 solution with great interest. The only possible explanation of the 
 phenomenon is said to be this : — " "We must assume that the per- 
 secution of the Jews under Claudius led the Christians to insist 
 strongly on their difference from the Jews, which was probably 
 owing to the influence exerted on the Eoman Church by men of 
 Pauline views. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Eomans four or five 
 years after that persecution, in the beginning of the reign of Ifero. 
 It is not probable that many Jews had ventured at this date to 
 return to Eome ; those who did return must have kept themselves 
 quiet, and the Christian Church would naturally wish to have as 
 little as possible to do with them. Even three years later, when 
 Paul appeared at Eome himself, the Jewish colony was probably 
 stiU weak, and consisted not of its former members, but of new 
 arrivals, who were not aware of the existence of the Christian 
 Church. It may thus have come about in these eight or ten years 
 that the Christian Church was entirely separate from the Jewish 
 colony : and this is the state of matters in the narrative at the end 
 of the Acts." But if this be the only possible solution of the problem, 
 how can we fail to see that it is strikingly contradicted by the Epistle 
 to the Eomans itself? What do we find here ? A Church which 
 had for some time attracted the Apostle's attention to such a degree 
 (i. 13, XV. 22) as to make him anxious to visit Eome ; a Church, the 
 state of which interested him so much that he addressed to it this 
 lengthy and important Epistle ; a Church of which he goes so far as 
 to say that their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world 
 (ev^apicTTO) TO) 0eo) /jLov . . . on rj Trtcrrt? vfiav KarayyeWeTai ev 
 oXft) Tm Koafio), Eom. i. 8, cf. xvi. 19 : ■^ yap vfj,a>v viraKori eU 
 ■7rdvTa<; a^UeTo). And such a Church was so completely unknown, 
 even to the Jews of Eome, who must surely have been led by every 
 natural consideration to inquire about a Christian Church consisting 
 in great part of their own countrymen, and contained in the same city 
 with themselves, that they could speak of Christianity as the Acts 
 reports, as a thing about which they had still to learn, with which they 
 had not yet come in contact, which was known to them only by hear- 
 say ? Can we not meet this assertion with the same question which 
 
Ghap. III.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 327 
 
 Olshausen uses to confute the ordinary view : — " Could people speak 
 in this way of a sect which they saw before them, and of the struggles 
 and divisions of which they themselves were witnesses ? It will 
 be hard to make this seem probable." It will be as hard to make 
 it seem probable that the Jews in Eome were the only people who 
 did not see what every one in possession of his senses must have 
 seen, since it lay open to the eyes of the whole world and must have 
 been a matter of notoriety. Only two years later (according to the 
 ordinary assumption) there occurred the great Neronian conflagra- 
 tion, and the persecution of the Christians consequent on it. How 
 well known the Christians of Eome were at that time is attested not 
 only by the event itself, but by the express statement of the his- 
 torian : — Nero subdidit reos, et quaesitissimis paenis affecit, quos per 
 flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat." (Tacitus, Annals, 
 XV. 44.) How then is it possible that two years earlier, Christianity 
 could be so unknown in Eome as we must assume it to have been 
 according to the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles, or how is it 
 possible to suppose that the Jews alone were ignorant of what every 
 one else in Eome was acquainted with? As for the Jewish 
 persecution under the Emperor Claudius, on which Olshausen relies 
 for his statement, the importance so often attached to it is not 
 entirely warranted. That it included not only Jews, but Christians 
 also, we must of course assume, as at that time no distinction could 
 be made between Jews and Christians, and the nearer the existing 
 Christian Church in Eome was then to the time of its origin, the 
 more would it consist of Jewish- Christian members. There is no 
 doubt that by the " impulsor Chrestus," who, according to Suetonius 
 in the life of Claudius (chapter xxv.), was the cause of the incessant 
 tumults of the Jews, we must understand nothing else than the 
 Christianity which was then becoming known in Eome, which was 
 received with acceptance by a part of the Jews residing there, and 
 which thus gave occasion to the disturbances and disputes which 
 had arisen within the Jewish population of Eome. It would then 
 be all the more natural that the two contending parties, the Jews 
 and the Christians, should both be expelled from the city ; and we 
 
328 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 find that Aquila and Priscilla, who met with the Apostle Paul in 
 Corinth, in consequence of this banishment, were by no means 
 entirely unacquainted with the Christian faith. (Acts xviii. 2,sq.) 
 But however this may be, the prohibition of the Emperor Claudius 
 can only have been of short duration, and cannot have been attended 
 by any important results. Such prohibitions were never very strictly 
 observed in Eome, especially when a change in the government 
 occurred soon after their issue. What Tacitus says of the mathe- 
 maticians, who were so often expelled not merely from Eome but 
 from Italy, that this " genus hominum in civitate nostra et vetabitur 
 semper et retinebitur,"^ allows us to infer that the Jews were not 
 very severely dealt with, the mild treatment they received being 
 also observable in the fact that both Suetonius and the author 
 of the Acts of the Apostles agree in stating that they were only 
 banished from the city of Eome, and not from Italy. How easy 
 must it have been for them to return from the neighbourhood 
 into the city itself, where they always had powerful patrons and 
 protectors, and at that veiy time had such in Nero and Poppsea.^ 
 Though some individuals, like Aquila and Priscilla, withdrew 
 to a greater distance than the prohibition required, and went 
 not only out of Eome but out of Italy, yet their absence from 
 
 ^ History, i. 22. Under the reign of the Emperor Claudius, Tacitus speaks of 
 u " de Mathematicis Italia peUendis factum Senatus Consultum," which is often 
 compared with this prohibition against the Jews as being " atrox et irritum." 
 
 ^ Compare on this the Programme of Professor C. Cless. Quseritur de Coloniis 
 Judaeorum in jEgyptum terrasque cum .^Igypto conjunctas post Mosem deductis. 
 Part I. Stuttgart, 1832, page 32, sq., where it is shown that many Jews lived at 
 the courts of princes as slaves and freedmen, and in high offices. "Ita in Caesarum 
 sedibus Acmen quandam, genere Judseam, Livise servisse, Thallum, Samaritanum, 
 Tiberii libertum fuisse scimus ; Poppseam, Neronis, qui et ipse Judseum quendam 
 mimum in deliciis habnit uxorem Judseis sacria deditam, gentisque Judsese fautricem 
 hujus mimi vel famulje Judsese impulsu mentem hunoin modum flexisse, veri non 
 est diasimile." Cless here follows Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 5, 7, xviii. 6, 4, xx. 8-11 
 (where Poppsea is designated as a proselyte to Judaism by the expression fifoo-f j3^s). 
 Josephus relates in his Life, chapter iii., that he had become acquainted with the 
 Empress Popptea through » Jewish ixifioKoyoe, who was in great favour with the 
 Emperor Nero, and that through her he speedUy obtained the release of the Jewish 
 priests who had been sent to Eome by the Procurator Felix, and that she had even 
 made him rich presents before he returned home. 
 
Chap. III.] THE EPISTLE TO TBE SOMANS. 329 
 
 Rome at a later date does not warrant us to conclude that this 
 prohibition was still maintained in its full stringency. It may 
 well be imagined that the more intimately AquQa and PrisciUa 
 became connected with the Apostle Paul, the less desirous 
 would they be to return again to a Church in which without doubt 
 an anti-Pauline tendency had early begun to develop itself. And 
 finally, how distinctly does the undeniable existence of a Eoman 
 Church, not only at the time of the composition of the Epistle to 
 the Eomans, but (as we cannot but suppose) for a series of years 
 before, speak for the fact that the residence of Jews in the city of 
 Eome was .no longer attended with any difficulty at that time. It 
 is therefore opposed to aU historic probability, that in consequence 
 of an interdict issued under Claudius (which does not in any way 
 warrant us to speak of Jewish persecutions under Claudius, such 
 as Olshausen supposes) the number of Jews in Eome was very 
 small, even at the time when Paul came there, and that that 
 interdict had led to such a separation of the Christian Church from 
 the Jewish population, that the Jews and the Christians in Eome 
 were in fact quite unknown to each other. If the enigmatical 
 phenomenon presented in the account in the Acts of the Apostles 
 cannot be explained in this way, another way must be tried. If 
 it be simply impossible that such relations existed in Eome 
 at that time, then this representation of the matter can only be 
 explained by a special design on the part of the author. What 
 this design was we can have little doubt after what has been said 
 above. The author of the Acts of the Apostles represents the 
 Apostle Paul as working with great success in the cause of Chris- 
 tianity, even during his Eoman imprisonment (xxviii. 30, 31). 
 Now, if he preached Christianity to the Gentiles in Eome, he must 
 have done so as an Apostle to the Gentiles. But it seemed neces- 
 sary for him to gain a right to do this, by means of an act in which 
 the unbelief of the Jews and their rejection of the Gospel were 
 strikingly declared. Accordingly we find that the affair is repre- 
 sented in such a manner as if the Jews in Eome now for the first 
 time came to know of Christianity, and took up the attitude of 
 
330 LIFE A]^D WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 unbelief towards it. Thus we have here a clear proof that the 
 author of the Acts of the Apostles was determined by a special 
 interest to give a representation which is wholly inconsistent with 
 the real facts of the case ; and we shall be obliged to make allow- 
 ance for this same interest in the analogous cases where the 
 Apostle is said to have acted in the same way towards the Jews. 
 We have already seen in detail that these narratives are not in 
 themselves probable, and cannot be reconciled with the sharp 
 distinction which the Apostle draws in his Epistle to the Galatians 
 (chapter ii.) between his airoaToKr] eis to. edvr] and the a-iroGToKi} 
 irepiToixri^. Now if the author of the Acts never loses an oppor- 
 tunity of asserting that it was owing to the Jews' own fault, that 
 it was in consequence of their unbelief, that the Gospel was 
 preached to the Gentiles, — if he allows this aim of his to dominate 
 his narrative ; if it be therefore indisputable that he works out in 
 his narrative an apologetic aim with reference to Paul in his 
 character of Apostle to the Gentiles, then it is impossible to avoid 
 the conclusion that he was led to this out of consideration for the 
 outward circumstances with which he found himself surrounded. 
 This is accordingly the point where the Acts meets the Epistle to 
 the Eomans. Both pre-suppose the same circumstances, and in 
 the same Church, since the Acts of the Apostles was in all pro- 
 bability written at Eome. The Pauline author of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, like the Apostle himself in the Epistle to the Eomans, 
 states with the same apologetic intention that the Gospel is given 
 to the Gentiles owing to the fault of the Jews themselves, and iri 
 consequence of their unbelief. But in order to place this fault of 
 theirs in a clearer light, and completely to clear the Apostle Paul 
 from every reproach that could be brought against him in this 
 respect, the author of the Acts of the Apostles represents the case 
 as though the Apostle had respected the Jewish national claim to 
 priority so far that he turned to the Gentiles only when he con- 
 sidered that the unbelief of the Jews gave him a right to do so. 
 Thus the testimony of the Acts agrees with what we have learned 
 from other quarters, that the cardinal point, which the Jew could 
 
Chap. III.] tRE EPISTLE TO TEE ROMANS. 331 
 
 never consent to relinquish, and any questioning of which 
 awakened his most anxious and conscientious scruples, was the 
 primacy of his nation over other nations. His becoming a Chris- 
 tian did not make him indifferent to this prerogative ; he stHl 
 resented any attack on its permanence or its integrity. 
 
 Before proceeding to discuss the Apostle's attack on this last 
 stronghold of Judaism, we must try to settle the question who the 
 readers of the Epistle were. After all that we have said, it seems 
 scarcely possible to doubt that they consisted principally of Jewish 
 Christians. And yet the traditional view is still upheld that they 
 must have been Gentile Christians. Neander says in his usual 
 style :^— "It is not improbable that the seed of the Gospel was 
 brought at an early period by the Jewish Christians to the Jews 
 at Eome, as at that time, if we may judge from the salutation at 
 the end of the Epistle, persons who were among the very earliest 
 Christians lived at Eome ; but those certainly did not form the 
 main body of the Church, for the greater part evidently consisted 
 of Christians of Gentile descent, to whom the Gospel had been 
 preached by men of the Pauline school, as a thing independent of 
 the Mosaic law. As an Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul felt himself 
 vmder an obligation to write to those men, and the relation in 
 which he felt he stood to them in virtue of that office, enabled him 
 to speak to them with a considerable amount of freedom. The 
 condition of this church was similar to what generally obtained in 
 the churches where the Gentile-Christian element was predominant, 
 hut not without some admixture of Jewish Christianity," etc. 
 
 All this is said to be perfectly evident, but not only is it destitute 
 of all historical foundation : the conclusion to be drawn from the 
 Epistle as a whole, as well as from all the indications to be found 
 in it which bear on this subject, is exactly the opposite. I think 
 we are entitled to take it for granted that the section of the Eoman 
 Church to which the Epistle is addressed, must have been the 
 preponderating element in the Church ; and if this be so, then the 
 Church consisted mainly of Jewish Christians. This is what we 
 
 1 Planting and Training (Bohn), p. 280. 
 
332 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 miglit have expected ; for the early existence of a Eoman Church 
 is traceable simply to the large number of Jewish residents in 
 Kome. The last chapter of the Epistle does not warrant the con- 
 clusion that those who had preached the Gospel in Eome had 
 been men of the Pauline school ; the conclusion which this chapter, 
 whether genuine or not, suggests, is that the Eoman Church came 
 into existence at a time when there was no such thing as Pauline 
 Christianity. Andronicus and Junia, the e-rrlaTjiMoi ev toI<; airoaro- 
 \oi,<i, are said to have been Christians before Paul (ver. 7). In fact 
 the notion, which was set afloat mainly by Eichhom, that those who 
 had most to do with the formation and development of the Eoman 
 Church were disciples of the Apostle Paul, rests on nothing but 
 the common idea that as Eome was the centre of the Gentile 
 world, a Christian Church existing there must have been composed 
 mainly of Gentile Christians, and that the Apostle would not have 
 written to the Eomans at such length or with such emphasis had 
 he not been in some special way related to them. This relation 
 seemed to be that the Christians of Eome were Gentile Christians, 
 and if so, who could have converted them to Christianity but 
 disciples of the Apostle ? All this falls to the ground as soon as 
 we regard the Epistle from the point of view which the work itself 
 suggests. The Epistle to the Eomans certainly leaves no doubt 
 as to the fact that when it was written the Eoman Church com- 
 prised GentUe as well as Jewish Christians, but we do not know in 
 what way the latter had been converted, and for the main contents 
 and the main object of the Epistle they are clearly of subordinate 
 importance. The very fact that when the Apostle turns to the 
 GentQe Christians, he makes it appear that he does so, and 
 addresses them specially (xi. 13-24), shows that in the rest of the 
 Epistle he had Jewish much more than Gentile Christians before 
 his mind. The main argument being concluded, they are singled 
 out as a part of the community, they are addressed specially {viuv 
 yap Xe'iyto roh eOveaiv, xi. 13), and thus appear as subordinate to 
 the general body, in addressing which no special designation is 
 required. The whole section which concludes this part of the 
 
Chap. III.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 333 
 
 Epistle, xi. 13-36, is certainly devoted to the Gentile Christians 
 (this is shown by the repeated v/tet?, vv. 28, 30, 31, and by the drift 
 of the passage 25-29, when correctly understood ; the idea that in 
 spite of the ircopaxrii; d-n-o fjLe'pov<! in regard to Israel, and in spite of 
 the TrXijjow/AO rav eOvwu, yet the time is coming when ovtco ttS? 
 'laparjX a-eodrja-eTM, being here insisted on in its application not to 
 the Jewish but to the Gentile Christians). But this section is 
 of the nature of a digression, and the argument then returns to its 
 proper object.-^ There are also many minor points in which we 
 recognise the main tone and drift of the Epistle, such as the 
 opening, where Old Testament ideas are studiously introduced 
 (fivayyeKiov ©eov, b irpoeiri^yyeiXaTO Sia twv Trpo^rjTcov avrov ev 
 ypa(jial^ ar/iai'i, irepi rov viov avrov, rov yevo/j,evov sk airep/u.aro'; 
 Aa0iB, i. 2, 3), and which show that the Apostle had Jewish- 
 Christian readers in his eye when he addressed himself to the 
 composition of the Epistle. As for what he says at the beginning 
 of the Epistle, of his vocation to proclaim the Gospel to the eOvTj, 
 this is not to be understood, as Neander takes it, as an intimation 
 that his being the Apostle of the Gentiles had made him feel it 
 his duty to write to the Eomans. It must not be overlooked, and 
 the better commentators have drawn attention to the fact, that the 
 edvrj of vv. 5 and 13, are not the Gentiles, but the nations generally. 
 The Apostle refers to the obligation attaching to his apostolic 
 oflice of preaching the Gospel to all men, without distinction of 
 race or culture, as the reason why he writes to the Christians of 
 Home. If he had had Gentile Christians in his mind he need not 
 have done more than simply announce himself as an Apostle to 
 the Gentiles. But in respect of the Jewish Christians, he speaks 
 of the universality of his calling ; it extended to all nations alike, 
 and the Jewish Christians of Eome were not beyond its scope. In 
 order to meet the objection that he was an Apostle of the Gentiles 
 1 Olshausen's assertion, Introduction, p. 48, is incorrect, that the section, chaps. 
 ix.-xi., is addressed solely to the Gentile Christians. They are addressed only 
 in xi. 13-35. How a commentator on the Eomans like Olshausen can maintain 
 that chaps, ix.-xi. are intended only for Gentile Christians, I am at a loss to under- 
 stand. 
 
334 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 and had nothing to do with Jewish Christians, he speaks of the 
 Jews as one people under the general term of the edvrj. He shows 
 his credentials with regard to the Jewish Christians, to justify the 
 Epistle which he is going to write. 
 
 We now pass on to the question which has still to be answered, 
 how, if the drift of the Epistle be what we have said, the pre- 
 liminary doctrinal discussion is related to the whole ? We have 
 here simply to inquire whether this part of the Epistle can be 
 regarded as anti- Judaistic ; and we think it can. The last and 
 gravest argument which Judaism had to bring against Paulinism 
 was comprised in the claim of primacy, which it regarded as the 
 inalienable advantage which the Jews as a nation possessed over 
 all other nations, as its theocratic birthright and privilege. The 
 Apostle Paul does not shrink from examining this question and 
 probing it to the very bottom, and the dogmatic discussion of his 
 Epistle thus comes to be the most radical and uncompromising 
 refutation of the claims of Judaism and of Jewish Christianity. 
 How distinctly does the dominant anti-Judaistic tendency of the 
 Epistle appear even in the first chapters, where, after announcing 
 his great theme, the StKatoavvr) 0eov eK TrtcrTeo)? et? Trlariv, the 
 Apostle at once contrasts with the righteousness of God the un- 
 righteousness of men, and establishes it as a notorious historical 
 fact. The result to which this leads him is that not only do Jews 
 and Gentiles stand completely parallel with each other in this 
 respect, but that, what his argument is evidently intended from 
 the very beginning to demonstrate, the unrighteousness of the 
 Gentiles presses home the fact of their own unrighteousness on 
 the consciousness of the Jews. He depicts in the strongest colours 
 the idolatry and all the sinful abominations of the Gentile world ; 
 but then he turns sharply round upon the Jews, and says to them, 
 ii. 1, that they who judge the Gentiles and condemn them as 
 sinners, do the same things as the Gentiles do, not perhaps in point 
 of matter, by committing the same sins and crimes, but certainly 
 in point of form, since what makes such actions deserving of 
 punishment is that in spite of higher knowledge (which the Gentiles 
 
Chap. III.] TEE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 335 
 
 also possessed, or else they would not have been morally account- 
 able, i. 19), things are done which, it is felt, cannot be done 
 without making the doer worthy of death. In this respect Gentiles 
 and Jews stand side by side ; if there be any difference it must 
 consist simply in the measure of light against which the things are 
 done which ought not to be done ; and in this respect the Jews 
 are the greater offenders. The Gentiles are not entirely without 
 law, they have the law of their conscience ; and if the Jew has the 
 advantage of a further law in addition to this law of nature, then 
 all that he boasts of with regard to his law confirms the sentence 
 against him. The great advantage of the law is simply that one 
 knows the divine will and can judge what is right or wrong ; and 
 so the Jew is simply the more deserving of punishment, the more 
 clearly and completely he knows from the law what he ought to 
 do, while he does the contrary nevertheless. The true moral 
 worth of a man consists in his act and in that alone, in his doing 
 what he is conscious that he ought to do, and in this regard the 
 difference between heathenism and Judaism disappears ; un- 
 cireumcision is as circumcision, circumcision as uncircumcision ; 
 the question is not what the Jew is outwardly, but only what he 
 is inwardly, in his heart before God, ii. 1-29. At iii. 1 a new 
 position is advanced, with the question, what advantage the Jew 
 has, if these things are so, as if there must necessarily be some 
 advantage which circumcision gives him over the Gentile. But 
 the Apostle meets this argument with a new humiliation for the 
 Jew, bringing the dicta of his own law to convince him of his 
 criminality. He has no advantage whatever ; the charge remains 
 true which has already been advanced, that Jew and Gentile are 
 alike under sin ; Scripture itself confirms the charge. "We know 
 that what the Scripture or the law says, it says to those who are 
 imder the law. Thus all those passages of Scripture which declare 
 the wickedness of men apply first of all to the Jews, and so every- 
 thing combines to show that by the deeds of the law no one can 
 he justified before God ; the law does not justify— on the contrary, 
 it merely introduces the knowledge of sin, iii. 1-20. If there be a 
 
336 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 righteousness at all, it cannot depend on the law, it is the righteous- 
 ness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ, towards which, as it 
 is a free gift of God, man's attitude can only be that of faith. 
 Faith alone answers to the universal notion of God. If it were 
 possible to obtain righteousness and salvation by the works of the 
 law, as the Jews think it is, since they hold circumcision itself to 
 be a saving work of the law, then only the Jews would have this 
 righteousness, and God would be the God of the Jews alone. But 
 God is the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews. Under 
 faith, then, the difference between the uncircumcised and the 
 circumcised disappears ; faith, and nothing else but faith, is the 
 essential point, iii. 20-31. Now if faith stands over against works, 
 works being of no value, the law itself seems to lose its value along 
 with the works of the law, and the question arises, "What is the 
 use of the law at all ? In this question the Apostle arrives at a 
 point where he cannot continue to argue against Judaism in the 
 same trenchant and uncompromising style as hitherto, or to take 
 up a purely negative position with regard to it. The Jew, who 
 can never be driven out of the belief that he must have some 
 advantage over the Gentile, can here appeal to the absolute im- 
 portance of the law, which cannot be simply abrogated. Thus in 
 speaking of the law the Apostle is obliged on the one hand to 
 acknowledge and uphold its absolute character, and on the other 
 to show that in relation to faith the law possesses a merely sub- 
 ordinate, relative, and negative importance. This is the ruling 
 idea of the discussion which now follows. In chap. iv. he shows 
 that even in the cases of Abraham and David there was a vdfio<: 
 TTio-Tew? which stood above the vd/j,o<; epycov (iii. 27), a righteous- 
 ness mediated by faith which was a way of salvation indicated 
 in the law itself In v. 1-11, where the transition is made to the 
 great and cardinal passage, v. 12-21, he gives a general view 
 of the great blessings which flow from the justification that is 
 by faith. Then in v. 12-21 he rises to the very highest point of 
 view, that of the contemplation of the development of religion. 
 Looking down from this vantage-ground, he examines and refutes 
 
Chap. III.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 337 
 
 the claim of Judaism to absolute importauce, and suggests to the 
 Judaists a point of view from which their Old Testament ideas 
 may most easily be harmonised with the new doctrine. The 
 Jewish theory of the religious history of the world contains, when 
 rightly understood, all the momenta out of which the Apostle's 
 doctrine is constructed. If the course of the history of humanity 
 from Adam to Christ be regarded in the light of its great principles 
 as these are indicated in the passage v. 12-21, it is at once seen 
 that it requires to be supplemented by a way of salvation such as 
 that of SiKaiocTvvr]. It is an absolute postulate of the history of 
 the world and of revelation, that there is not merely a condemna- 
 tion to death, but also a justification to life ; and in the view of the 
 world which thus arises, the whole history of humanity falls into 
 two opposed and mutually complementary periods, each with its 
 own characteristic principle by which all the details are determined. 
 But it is a further and equally necessary result of this objective 
 historical view, that the law and the salvation founded upon it 
 belong to a subordinate stage of religious development, is thus 
 of merely relative importance, and occupies a merely negative 
 relation to the era which succeeds it. In the following section, in 
 which a new train of ideas appears, vi. 1, it is still the notion of the 
 law round which the Apostle's argument moves. The law can 
 only be fulfilled by works, and the works which the law asks for 
 are a moral requirement. Now the Apostle has shown that where 
 the requirement of the law ought to be met by works of the law 
 this is not the case, that the very opposite takes place, — immorality, 
 unrighteousness, sin; so that, as no man can become righteous 
 through the works of the law, the unrighteousness of man is 
 simply confronted by the righteousness of God. Here his 
 opponents who founded the absolute importance of Judaism upon 
 the law might charge his doctrine of faith as opposed to works 
 with subverting the idea of the law, and being prejudicial to 
 morality. To meet this charge the Apostle takes up, chap, vi., a 
 different standpoint from that of the former chapters, and asserts 
 that so far is this from being the case, that the destruction of sin 
 VOL. I. ^ 
 
33» LIFE AND WOBK OF PA UL. [Part II. 
 
 iu its principle and from its very roots is only to be found in the 
 salvation which he preaches. That unity with Christ in which 
 the Christian is already dead to sin, and sin in fact no longer 
 exists for him, makes it practically and morally impossible for him 
 to serve sin, vi. 8-23. And the connection with which man was 
 bound to sin being absolutely severed through the death of Christ, 
 his connection with the law is also absolutely severed. I'or if the 
 Christian as such stands no longer under sin, then neither does he 
 stand under the law. Sin and law are entirely parallel ; what is 
 said of sin applies to the law as well ; so far is the law depreciated. 
 The Apostle had already said of the law that the works of the law 
 had no power to justify ; that by the law came the knowledge of 
 sin, iii. 20 ; that the law increased sin in the period between Adam 
 and Christ, v. 20 ; and that the reign of the law had now been 
 succeeded by the reign of grace ; and throughout his discussion the 
 notions of sin and law had been so closely interwoven that they 
 might almost appear to be identical. At vii. 7 the Apostle himself 
 is led to put the question, What shall we say then ? Is the law sin ? 
 The question on which he has to explain himself to his readers is 
 thus put in the sharpest form that controversy could give it, and 
 it now becomes necessary for the Apostle to state his view of the 
 nature of the law. The identity of the two notions, law and sin, 
 which his words suggest, is shown not to be a real one by the 
 distinction which he draws between what the law is objectively, 
 in itself and what it is siibjectively, for man. In drawing this 
 distinction the Apostle enters fully into the psychological process 
 in which, though Judaism and Christianity approach each other 
 ever so nearly, there is yet a barrier which cannot be broken 
 through, separating the Jew as such from Christianity, and ex- 
 cluding him from its blessings. 
 
 If we look back on the Apostle's whole line of thought, as we 
 have traced it in the first eight chapters of his Epistle, it seems 
 impossible to suppose that he had any other readers than Jewish 
 Christians before his mind. The whole section is evidently meant 
 to bear on the scruples and objections which deterred the Jewish 
 
Chap. HI.] y^^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 339 
 
 Christians who were to read the Epistle from a full acceptance of 
 Pauline universalism. And as for these scruples and objections, 
 must not the great stone of stumbling, which it was impossible to 
 surmount, just have been the notion to which the Apostle's whole 
 argument refers, that the Jews were no better than the Gentiles, 
 that they had no privileges which the Gentiles did not equally 
 possess, that even the law did not waiTant the assertion of that 
 absolute importance which they ascribed to Judaism ? "We see 
 how warmly he threw himself into these questions which pos- 
 sessed such interest for his readers as well as for himself, when, 
 after concluding the first part of his Epistle with expressions of 
 the highest joy, with a rapturous description of the infinitely 
 blessed fellowship which Christians enjoy with God and Christ, 
 he goes on in words of the deepest sorrow and pathos to express 
 his deep concern at the fate of his fellow-countrymen. The fact 
 before his mind, which forms so sad a contrast with what goes 
 before, is that aU those blessings are lost to those for whom they 
 were first of all designed. They are Israelites ; all the goods and 
 blessings of the religious polity of the Old Testament belong to 
 them, the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the 
 giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises ; theirs 
 are the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; of them, according to 
 the flesh, Christ came, on which account God who is over all is to 
 he blessed for ever. We must assume that this idea which the 
 Apostle here expresses with such a gush of sympathy, was present 
 to him from the beginning, determined the whole scope and con- 
 ception of the Epistle, and was never lost sight of during the 
 elaboration of the theme. Only on this hypothesis can we see 
 into the motive and origin of the Epistle in such a way as to be 
 able to understand its historical position. What connects the two 
 parts of the Epistle with each other is, more than anything else, 
 that in both the Apostle is controverting Judaism in its radical 
 principles. That no righteousness can be attained in the way ot 
 works of the law, that in justification by faith the Jews have not 
 the slightest advantage over the Gentiles, that on the side of the 
 
340 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part U. 
 
 law there is nothing but unrighteousness and sin, this is the gist of 
 the first eight chapters ; and in the next three we find a refutation 
 of the same claims of Jews and Jewish Christians which the first 
 part presupposed, only that now there is more direct reference to 
 the arguments which could still be brought to support these claims, 
 and the Apostle argues with greater emphasis and power, as he 
 stands more directly face to face with the concrete facts of the 
 case. The particularism of Judaism had been to a great extent 
 overcome ; yet the question was still asked as a pertinent one, 
 whether eWeTTTOJKei' o \o7o? tov Qeov ; ix. 6. The old national 
 promises of God cannot have become entirely meaningless, which 
 would be the case if the Jews had no advantage as a nation over 
 the Gentiles. This is the mildest form of Jewish particularism, 
 which simply appeals to the theocratic ideas, to the truth and 
 faithfulness of God. Yet even in this form it is to be shown to 
 be destitute of all warrant whatever. Even this form of the idea 
 claims some advantage for the Jew over the Gentile, and this can 
 be nothing but a righteousness founded upon works. But there 
 is no such righteousness ; the only righteousness is that of God 
 which excludes all human works. The Apostle thus presents the 
 idea which is the subject of his Epistle in its extreme form, dis- 
 cusses it dogmatically, and then expresses his view of the subject 
 in his profound regret that the new way of salvation set up by 
 God does nothing for the Jews, in spite of all their national 
 advantages. They are rejected ; and though God's word cannot 
 indeed prove untrue, nor his promise remain unfulfilled, yet this 
 wiU be in a way quite independent of all human co-operation. 
 What right then has any one to complain of the rejection of the 
 nation as if that were inconsistent with the old national privileges, 
 and to take offence and complain against God on this account ? 
 God can do what he will, and the Jews have no one but themselves 
 to blame if they have no part in this salvation ; they have failed 
 to consider that the life under the law has come to an end in 
 Christ, and to submit themselves to the new order set up by God. 
 Is not the connection of the two parts of the Epistle perfectly 
 
Chap. III.] y^-^ EPISTLE TO TEE ROMANS. 341 
 
 satisfactory as we have traced it, both externally and internally ? 
 The fundamental idea which runs through the whole, is the 
 absolute nullity of all the claims advanced by Jewish particularism. 
 The Apostle aims at refuting Jewish particularism so thoroughly 
 and radically, that it shall appear to the age to have been plucked 
 up by the very roots. When we understand the intimate connec- 
 tion of the two parts of the Epistle to each other, we see how 
 clearly and perfectly this purpose was attained in it. 
 
 In the hortatory part of the Epistle, which begins with chap, xii., 
 we find general moral precepts, especially in chap, xii., and then 
 more special exhortations to obedience to the authorities and 
 to mutual toleration in respect of certain sumptuary abstentions 
 and regulations. As for this latter point, the commentators, as is 
 well known, are in great uncertainty as to who the " weak " were, 
 of whom the Apostle thought it necessary to speak in chap. xiv. 
 It is correctly assumed that this section must be understood to 
 refer to the relations between the liberal Gentile Christians and 
 the more prejudiced and anxious Jewish Christians. To come 
 nearer the point, however, it is necessary to seek more light from 
 history on the Judaising character of the Eoman Church. Like 
 the Jewish Christians of the early Church generally, the great 
 majority of those at Eome held more or less Ebionite principles.^ 
 The characteristics of this party at Eome, as suggested to us by 
 chap, xiv., are stich as are found nowhere else but with the 
 Ebionites. Those whom the Apostle designated as weak, refrained 
 from eating meat, and ate only herbs {\dxava, verse 2, as distin- 
 guished from Kpew; — vegetables generally). They also drank no 
 wine (kuXov to fir) cpayelv Kpea, fiTjZe Trielv olvov, xiv. 21). We 
 are told by Epiphanius that the Ebionites on principle refused to 
 eat meat,^ because, as they themselves explained, all meat is the 
 result of copulation. They held the eating of meat to be polluting, 
 
 ' Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 18, makes Ebion, the pretended founder of the 
 Ebionites, appear with his Kr/pvyfia in Rome as well as in Asia. 
 
 ^ Haer. xxx. 15. Km K/jeSv, Koi Trda-rjs oXXi/r iBwdrjs Trjs otto (rap<S>p TrcTroii/- 
 liivr/s 'E/3io)i/ KoX 'EjSiav'tTai navTeXais cmixovTai, fiia to ck crvvova-ias <ai fit^fws 
 (TtitiiaTa SLvaL avrd. 
 
3'12 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 and ia this light it must also have been considered by the Eoman 
 Jewish Christians, as the Apostle finds himself obliged to remind 
 them, oTt ovh\v koivov Bi avrov' el fitj tm 'Koyi^ojj.evw ti KOivov 
 elvai, eKelvai kouvov (verse 1 4) ; and Travra fiev Kadapa uXKa kukov 
 TO) av6panr<p Ta> Sia irpouKOfifjiaTO^ eadlovTi (verse 20). If they 
 held flesh to be in itself impure, what other reason could they 
 give for this impurity but that mentioned by Epiphanius ? Ac- 
 cording to the pseudo-Clementine Homilies also, the unnatural 
 eating of meat is of demoniacal origin, and was introduced by 
 those giants who, from their bastard nature, took no pleasure in 
 pure nourishment and only lusted after blood, Hom. viii. 15. 
 Therefore the eating of meat is as polluting as the heathen 
 worship of demons, with its sacrifices and sacrificial feasts, through 
 participation in which a man becomes an op.oBlaiTO'; of demons. 
 Having rejected animal flesh as food, the Ebionites had to take to 
 vegetables (xd'^ava). There is some direct evidence of this. In 
 the Homilies the Apostle Peter describes his way of living to 
 Clement (xii. 6), and says apr^ fjLova> koI eXalaL'i '^cofiai Kai 
 airaviat; Xa^dvoi,<;. It was a lofty degree of holiness that Peter 
 cultivated, and he permitted himself the use oixd-^ava but seldom : 
 for ordinary Jewish Christians they were well fitted for ordinary use. 
 According to certain passages in the fathers,^ ilatthew the Apostle 
 and James, the brother of the Lord, also subsisted entirely on vege- 
 table food. And we can understand why these two men are credited 
 with this mode of living. Both of them are prominent examples 
 of the character of the primitive Jewish-Christian Church into 
 which the strict Ebionite element entered much more largely than 
 is commonly supposed. There is no express statement about 
 abstinence from wine, but the two things generally went together, 
 and we are warranted in assuming that the stricter Ebionites held 
 
 1 Clement of Alexandria, Paedag. ii. 1 : — Mardaios, 6 anoa-ToXos (nrfpfidrov, koI 
 aKpohpvaiv Koi \axava>v, av€v KpfSiv, ikajx^ave. Augustine Adv. Faustum, xxii. 
 3 : — Jaoobua, frater Domini, seminibua et oleribus usus est, non carne nee vino. 
 The description also which Hegesippus (Eusebius, H. E. ii. 2, 3) gives of this 
 James, has quite the Ebionite stamp of thought and manners, and it is specially 
 said of him, oivov Ka\ crUipa ovk emev, ov8e ip.\lfv)^ov eipaye. 
 
Chap. III.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 343 
 
 the use of wine to be unlawful, by the fact that," according to 
 Epiphanius {loo. cit. 16), they celebrated their annual mysteries, 
 i.e. the Eucharist, with unleavened bread and pure water. The 
 Roman Ebionites must have had the same custom, as Peter cele- 
 brated the Eucharist, which followed after baptism, with nothing 
 but bread and salt (Horn. xiv. 1). We see from xiv. 5 that the 
 Jewish Christians of Eome also regarded certain days as peculiarly 
 sacred. This appears natural when we remember the importance 
 which the Jews ascribed to Sabbaths, and new-moons, and other 
 such days. We further iind it expressly mentioned about the 
 Ebionites that, after the rite of circumcision, they regarded the 
 keeping of the Sabbath as the most sacred ordinance of the Jewish 
 religion.^ It thus seems then extremely probable, that the Apostle 
 had in his eye the custom of observing the Sabbath and the Pass- 
 over in the Jewish fashion, which kept its ground so long in the 
 Jewish-Christian churches. 
 
 In connection with the exhortation which the Apostle gives 
 (chap. xiiL 1) to obedience to authority, the commentators do not 
 fail, in order to explain the persistency and detail with which this 
 is enforced and made into a duty, to call to mind the position ot 
 the Christians with regard to the power of the State, which from 
 the beginning was mistrustful of the new religious community, and 
 under the incessant appeals of its immediate opponents, the Jews 
 and priests (Acts xviL 7, xix. 26), was likely to turn any illegal act 
 of its members into a pretext for measures of oppression. They 
 also refer to the very intelligible anxiety which certain prejudices 
 and misconceptions on the part of new converts might give rise 
 to. The ordinary Jew, it is said, " held the Jewish theocracy to be 
 the only legitimate form of government (Deut. xvii. 15), and held 
 the Gentile states to be founded and governed by diabolic agency. 
 (Luke iv. 6, Apoc. xi., Eph. vL 12, John xii. 31.) His obedience 
 was rendered only on compulsion, and he regarded the raising of 
 taxes as a direct robbery of the temple at Jerusalem (Matt. xxii. 
 17). These fanatical ideas, gathering strength from the Messianic 
 1 Epiph. Haer. xxx. 2, xvi. 17. 
 
344 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 hope, and from the oppressive policy of government, made the 
 people in Gentile lands inclined to lawless and seditious conduct ; 
 and an example of this had just been witnessed in the capital 
 (Acts xviii. 2, and Suet, vita Claud. 25)." There is some show of 
 reason for these observations, though they are advanced without 
 sufficient historical basis. It certainly coniirms the view we have 
 taken up to find that it throws light both on the occasion the 
 Apostle may have had for issuing such exhortations, and on the 
 direct bearing these exhortations had. The point of the Apostle's 
 exhortation is to be found in the statement, that every higher 
 power, the governing authority in general, is of God. This asser- 
 tion, put in so universal a form, seems to presuppose an antithesis 
 equally universal, the view, namely, that the civil magistracy, not 
 only in certain special cases, but generally, as such, is not of God, 
 but from an ungodly source. This view the Ebionites actually 
 held ; in their dualistic way of thinking they regarded the whole 
 present world, with all its earthly powers, as the opposite of the 
 world to come, and the kingdom of the devil.-' It is true that we 
 must not take the form of Ebionitism which we find in the writings 
 of Epiphanius and in the Clementine Homilies to have been the 
 original and only form which the sect assumed. The harsher and 
 more one-sided elements of Ebionitism must belong to its later 
 
 ^ Avo Tivas a-vviaraxTiv, says Epiphanius, Hser. xxx. 16, eV Qeov rerayiiivovs, eva 
 fiev Tov HpiGTov cva Se tov bid^oKov Ka\ tov fi^v Xptarov Xe-youcrt ro€ [jJ}<Xovtos 
 aiKovos elXrjipevaL tov K^ripov, tov 6c 8id^o\ov tovtov TreTTLO'Tfva'OaL tov alatva €K 
 7rpo(TTayris drfdev tov navTOKpaTopos KaTa alTrj(rtv eKaTepcav avTwv. In harmony 
 with this, the author of the Clementine Homilies says, xv. 7 : — " The trne Prophet 
 teaches that God the Creator of all things assigned two realms to two beings, the 
 one good, the other evil. To the evil being he gave the lordship of the present 
 world, with the provision that he should punish those who do evil ; to the good 
 being the future, eternal world. But God leaves every man to choose with his own 
 will whether he will have the present evil or the future good. Those who choose 
 the present world may become rich, may be at ease, and may enjoy what they can, 
 for in the good of the future world they have no part. But those who decide for 
 the future world must regard nothing as their own in this one, which belongs to 
 an alien ruler, but bread and water (according to xii. 6, also olives and cabbage, 
 'Kaxava), and even this provision they must procure with sweat, for no man has a 
 right to deprive himself of life. Thus the children of the future world are, while 
 they remain in this one, in the hostile realm of a foreign king " (xv. 6). 
 
Chap. III.] tEE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 345 
 
 age, when opposition to the Church drew out and hardened its 
 peculiarities. Thus with regard to our present point, we must not 
 carry the comparison of the later Ebionites with the Jewish 
 Christians of Eome too far. But while we do not overlook this 
 caution, which the nature of the case obviously imposes on us, 
 we cannot be blind to the agreement and family relationship be- 
 tween the Ebionite view of the world and that of the Jewish 
 Christians of Eome. In the surrounding world, living as they 
 did, at the seat and centre of the power which ruled the world, 
 they only saw a hostile principle, opposed to God ; and their 
 submission to the ruling power was not due to their thinking 
 that a government which in its outward manifestations was 
 evidently undivine might yet be good and divine in principle, an 
 order set up by God : it was rendered with an inward repugnance 
 and resistance of heart, as a feature of their struggle against the 
 opposing might of evil, which had not ceased but was repressed for 
 the time by the force of necessity. Hence the Apostle's exhorta- 
 tion, that it is a moral necessity to be subject to the higher power, 
 not merely from fear of its punishment, resistance being positively 
 out of the question, but from an inner conviction of its inherent 
 right (avcvyKT) inroTaa-aeaOai, ov fxovov Bia t-tjv opyTjv, aXKa Kat, 
 ha Triv avvelBrjcriv, ver. 5) ; that the cause of fear is not in the 
 magistracy itself, as if it were essentially a wicked, hostile power, 
 but only in the moral conduct of the subject (ol jap ap')(ovT6<; ouk 
 uai ^d^o<; tS>v wyaOwv epymv, aWa twv KaKwv. 6e\ei,<; Be fii) (fio- 
 ^ela-dai tt]v e^ovalav ; to dyaOov iroUi,, ver. 3, cf 4) ; and that the 
 magistracy should not be regarded as a thing evil, wrong, or 
 abominable in itself, as a diabolical power absolutely hostile to 
 what is good {ov yap ecmv e^ovaoa et /it] airo Qeov . . . &eov yap 
 kaKovoi ean aoL ek to ayaOov, vv. 1, 4). We must assume that the 
 view which the Apostle is here combating was the extreme view, — 
 the position that the principle which governs the world, and exerts 
 its power through the existing civil magistracy is not divine, but 
 purely worldly, or even devilish ; otherwise we shall scarcely under- 
 stand how the Apostle could pass over all the other questions 
 
346 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 which he might have been expected to take up in dealing with the 
 relation of the governed to the government, and limit himself to 
 the one wide proposition which no one would deny as a general 
 truth, ov eaTiv l^ovcrla e\ fir) diro 0eov. The negative of his 
 proposition naturally suggests the antithesis he had before him : 
 the magistracy is not of divine, but of undivine origin. If this 
 assertion can in no case be true, and leads to absolute dualism, 
 where can the magistracy be from el fir) a-jib Qeovl Thus the 
 negative proposition which had to be maintained in the face of the 
 Roman Christians, ' the magistracy is not of the devil,' passes over 
 into the affirmative, ' it is of God.' Only in this connection can we 
 understand the unqualified universality with which the Apostle 
 claims for every government actually existing, for a Nero on the 
 throne, for example, the dignity of a divine ordination. The 
 assertion is of equal truth with the unquestionable doctrine which 
 it presupposes, that the power which rules over the visible world 
 cannot be an evil, undivine, principle. Even the Ebionite system 
 represented the devil as charged with the government of the aeon 
 only eK irpocTTayrj^ tov TravTOKparopo'^, but the lordship thus 
 handed over to the devil was given him absolutely, and too great 
 room was still left for dualism ; how easily could the deeper idea 
 which subordinated dualism to monotheism retire completely into 
 the back-ground, at least in the mind of the ordinary Christian ? 
 It might further be objected to the comparison of the Jewish 
 Christian view of the world which we find in the Epistle to the 
 Eomans with that of the Ebionites, that the author of the Clemen- 
 tines deduces from his dualistic philosophy itself a new support 
 of the Christian law to suffer injustice rather than do it. Those, 
 he says, who have made the future world their choice, are yet 
 allowed to enjoy many things which do not properly belong to them 
 in the present world where they live together with the evil ; life 
 and light, bread and water, and many things more : the children 
 of the present world, however, have no part in the future world, and 
 so those who suffer wrong are actually the doers of it, and the 
 ' Cf. the ijassage of Epiphanius cited above. 
 
Chap. III.] j^jj^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 347 
 
 doers of wrong the sufferers (Horn. xv. 8). If the Ebionites held 
 this opinion, how could the Apostle feel it necessary to issue a 
 warning against avTiTarreaOau rrj e^ovaia ? But we can scarcely 
 suppose that the view indicated in these words was worked out 
 practically, and when we find the precept rather to suffer injustice 
 than to do it thus illustrated and pressed home in the Homilies, 
 we are naturally led to think that there was a reason for this. The 
 prevailing spirit of the Ebionites may have led the author of the 
 Homilies to think these exhortations were by no means superfluous, 
 just as the Apostle felt in writing to the Christians of Eome. 
 There is nothing more natural than that a spirit of opposition so 
 deeply rooted and appealing to such principles should have 
 threatened again and again to break out in actual violence. Con- 
 sidering the whole case, then, we see that it is extremely probable 
 that the Jewish Christians of Eome entertained a dualistic view of 
 the world nearly related to that of the later Ebionites. And this 
 conclusion is not difficult to reconcile with other facts we learn 
 about the Eoman Christians. This dualism in regard to civil Ufe, 
 stands in a very natural connection with that view which sees in 
 the life of Nature an unclean, demoniacal principle, which excites 
 disgust and abhorrence (xiv. 14, 20). 
 
 But, it is objected, if the Apostle had this kind of opponents to 
 deal with, his polemic ought to have been of a totally different 
 nature. " We should have to assume," Neander says (op. cit. 287), 
 "that these people had gone so far as to consider the eating of 
 flesh to be absolutely sinful. But this could only have been held 
 on the principles of a certain dualistic theosophy. Paul would 
 not have treated such a position with so much tolerance. We 
 cannot suppose that he would treat people holding such views as 
 simply • the weak,' and show them so much indulgence, or forbear 
 from discussing the ideas on which this standpoint was founded. 
 And though we should not assume that they openly avowed the 
 principles of dualism (for had they done so, he must have attacked 
 their position), yet we cannot believe that he would deal so gently 
 and indulgently with an arrogant asceticism which was so obviously 
 
348 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part 11. 
 
 irreconcilable either with his doctrine of justification, or with the 
 principles of Christian humility." This line of remark is carried 
 still further, when it is said that this tendency was connected with 
 a dualistic view of the world which referred the civil government 
 to an evil principle. But the objection does not appear to me to 
 possess much weight. It is very hazardous to attempt to lay down 
 how the Apostle must have argued against his opponents in such 
 and such a case. If we have suflicient historical evidence for con- 
 cluding that the readers of his Epistle held certain views and 
 principles, we must also take it for granted that his polemic 
 contains what was most likely to be of use in the circumstances. 
 The data which we can command in such a case are generally 
 scanty; and who can see into the circumstances so clearly, and 
 balance the different considerations which weighed against each 
 other so accurately, as to enable him to say with confidence that 
 the Apostle must have spoken thus, and not otherwise ? The main 
 point is to see that what the Apostle actually says is not incon- 
 sistent with the view of the circumstances which we have formed, 
 and presents some one side of the question in a clear and life-Uke 
 way. And how much is this the case with regard to the question 
 before us ! How clear are the correctives which the Apostle seeks 
 to apply to the narrow views and perverted principles of his readers; 
 how admirably is the practical bearing of the subject, as it 
 appeared to the Christian consciousness, stated and insisted on ! 
 It is said that if the Apostle had such opponents to deal with, he 
 would have applied himself more directly to their dualistic view 
 of the world. But this is not merely asking for a thing which 
 nowhere occurs in the Epistle, a discussion of speculative ideas 
 which lie outside the immediate sphere of the Christian faith ; it 
 is also an assumption that the Jewish Christians of Eome held 
 their dualistic view of the world as a theory, distinctly and con- 
 sciously. It may have had its root even then in a certain vague 
 and undeveloped philosophy of the universe, but in what we see 
 of it, it appears simply on its practical side, in its bearing on certain 
 relations of life. Now the Apostle does not conceal that he does 
 
Chap. III.] y^£ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 349 
 
 not consider the view of the Jewish Christians who refrained from 
 the use of animal food, and of wine, and held vegetables to be the 
 only pure and permissible diet, to be objectively true : he expressly 
 calls these Christians the " weak," and says they have no right 
 whatever to condemn those who do not share their views about 
 eating and drinking (xiv. 1, sq.) He also exhorts those who are 
 stronger not to scorn their weaker brethren for their more circum- 
 scribed notions ; nor treat them with contempt. These exhorta- 
 tions to the two parties were to show that the question, when 
 regarded objectively on its own merits, is indifferent. No man has 
 4 right to assume the of&ce of master or judge of his neighbours, 
 thus intruding on a sphere in which he has no right whatever. 
 Man is not even his own master ; he belongs to Christ, and the 
 importance of matters like this depends entirely on the relation 
 which they occupy to Christ in each man's mind. At ver. 13 he 
 comes to the subjective aspect of the question, and shows how 
 important it is to consider that no offence be given to a brother. 
 This offence could be given only on the side of the more liberal 
 Christians ; they could show their disregard of the scruples and 
 restrictions of their weaker brethren in such a way as to shock 
 them, and either lead them to form harsh judgments, or bewilder 
 their conscience. The Apostle admonishes the more liberal 
 Gentile Christians : — el Be Bia ^pafia 6 dSeXcpo'i a-ov Xvirelrai . . . 
 fit] Tw ppoDixari, <70V eKelvov aTToXkve . . . fir] eveKev ^pwfiaTo^ 
 KaraXve to ep<yov tov &eov . . . koXov to firj ipayelv Kpea, firjBe 
 melv olvov, etc. He advises them that they should abstain from 
 animal food, and from wine too, that they should accommodate 
 themselves to the principles of the Jewish Christians in these 
 particulars. Not that he wished to bind it upon the Gentile 
 Christians as a duty, that they should conform to the Jewish 
 Christians in eating and drinking ; the object and the whole con- 
 nection of his argument show us that he merely recommends 
 abstention from such eating and drinking as might shock others. 
 This did not by any means imply that the Gentile Christians were 
 not -to make use of their Liberty where they were not in contact 
 
350 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 with Jewish Christians, and had no such results to fear. This is 
 the Apostle's customary mode of dealing with such cases, and he 
 must have been very anxious, when writing to the Eoman 
 Christians, to avert anything that might endanger those peaceable 
 relations between Jewish and Gentile Christians on which the 
 unity of the Church so much depended. He had most important 
 truths to press upon the Jewish Christians ; and his levelling of 
 their claims and privileges seemed to be putting the Gentile 
 Christians before them : so, on the other side, he had to guard 
 against undue self-exaltation on the side of the Gentile Christians, 
 and to remind them of the duties attached to the relation which 
 they bore to the Jewish Christians. In xi. 18, sq., he gave an 
 emphatic warning against that arrogance into which the GentUe 
 Christians might easily be betrayed in view of the advantage which 
 their call to the kingdom of God appeared to give them. The 
 passage xiv. 13-23 is to be regarded from the same point of view. 
 
 There is besides an ancient authority in favour of the theory of 
 the Judaistic character of the Eoman Church, that of a commentary 
 which is appended to the works of Ambrose.'' AVith the view of 
 explaining the circumstances of the Eoman Church from its 
 establishment, — ut rerum notitia habeatur plenior, principia earum 
 requirere, — the author of this Commentary remarks on the intro- 
 duction to the Epistle to the Eomans : — Constat temporibus 
 Apostolorum Judseos propterea, quod sub regno Eomano agerent, 
 Eomte habitasse, ex quibus hi, qui crediderant, tradiderunt Eomanis, 
 ut Christum profitentes legem servarent. Eomani autem, audita 
 fama virtutum Christi, faciles ad credendum fuerunt, utpote 
 prudentes nee immerito prudentes, qui male inducti (so far as 
 they were converted by Jewish Christians) statim correcti sunt 
 
 1 To the works of Ambrose (in the Benedict. Edition, vol. iv., appendix, p. 33 f.) 
 there are added Commentaria in xiii. Epistolas Paulinas. Augustine, wlio cites 
 a passage from this Commentary (contra duas Epist. Pelag. iv. 7), names as the 
 author one Hilarius, who apparently was a deacon of the Roman Church in the 
 time of the Roman Bishop Damasus in the middle of the fourth century. In 
 any case the Commentary seems to be of very early date, and to have been written 
 by an author acquainted with the circumstances of the Roman Church. 
 
Chap. III.] rp^j^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 351 
 
 (through the Epistle of the Apostle) et permanserunt in eo. Igitur 
 ex Judseis credentes et improhe sentieutes de Christo legem servan- 
 dam dicebant, quasi non esset in Christo salus plena. Ideo negat 
 illos spiritualem gratiam consecutos. Hi ergo ex Judseis, ut datur 
 intelligi, credentes Christo, non accipiebant, Deum esse de Deo, 
 putantes uni Deo adversum,^ quamobrem negat illos spiritualem 
 Dei gratiam consecutos, ac per hoc confirmationem eis deesse. Hi 
 (Jewish Christians of this kind), sunt, qui et Galatas subverterant, 
 ut a traditione Apostolorum recederent, quibus ideo irascitur 
 Apostolus, quia, docti bene, transducte fuerant, Eomanis autem 
 irasci non debuit, sed et laudare fidem illorum, quia nulla insignia 
 virtutum videntes, nee aliquem Apostolorum, susceperant fidem 
 Christi, ritu licet Judaico, in verbis potius quam in sensu, non enim 
 expositum illis fuerat mysterium crucis Christi. (Here also the 
 author shows how completely he was aware of the true point at 
 issue between Pauline and Jewish Christianity. For Jewish Chris- 
 tians generally the death of Christ possessed no essential import- 
 ance; in the pseudo- Clementine Homilies it is only mentioned 
 once in passing, Hom. iii. 19.) Propterea quibusdam advenienti- 
 bus, qui recte crediderant, de edenda carne, et non edenda (the 
 author seems to refer this dispute not merely to the participation in 
 the Gentile sacrificial feasts) : quaestiones fiebant, et utrumnam spes, 
 qusB in Christo est, sufficeret, aut et lex servanda esset. In the 
 same reference, pp. 38, 39, it is remarked on Eomans i. 10 and 13 :^ 
 Carnalem illos sensum assecutos significat, quia sub nomine Christi 
 non ilia, quae Christus docuerat, fuerant assecuti, sed ea, quse fuerant 
 a Judseis tradita. Se autem cupere citius venire, ut ab hac illos 
 traditione abstraheret, et spirituale illis traderet donuni. Hinc 
 datur intelligi, superius non fidem illorum laudasse sed facilitatem 
 et votum circa Christum : Christianos enim se profitentes, sub lege 
 
 ' For a long period afterwards tlie JewisU representation of the person of Christ 
 was the prevailing one in the Roman Church. The Unitarians, at whose head 
 stood Artemon, appealed for their doctrine to the ancient mode of teaching of 
 the Roman Church, and the doctrine in the pseudo-Clementine HomiHes, that 
 Christ was God of God, was considered as in opposition to the Jewish Monotheism. 
 Cf. Die Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, Th. i. pp. 155, 279. 
 
352 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part 11. 
 
 agebant simpliciter, sicut illis fuerat traditum. Propositum et 
 votum suum ostendit quod quidem scire illos non ambigit per eos 
 fratres, qui ab Hierusalem vel conflnibus civitatibus causa suse 
 religionis ad urbem (this genuine Roman designation of the city 
 of Eome indicates almost with certainty that the author of this 
 Commentary was a Roman), veniebant, sicut Aquila et Priscilla, 
 votum ejus insinuantes Eomanis. Cum enim saepe vellet venire et 
 prohiberetur, sic factum est, ut scriberet epistolam, ne diu in mala 
 exercitatione detenti, non facile corrigerentur. Et fratres eos vocat, 
 non solum, quia renati erant, sed et quia inter eos licet pauci qui 
 recte sentirent. 
 
 The author, as is clear from these last remarks, by no means 
 holds the view which the more modern commentators have long 
 taken for granted, namely, that the Apostle wrote to the Romans 
 as to a Church with whom he was on friendly terms. He rather 
 represents him as writing to them as to opponents, or as to those 
 who were now for the first time to be brought to the true Gospel 
 faith, and, according to the contents of the Epistle itself, and the 
 entire position of affairs in the Roman Church, this must certainly 
 have been the case. 
 
 The two last chapters of the Epistle require a critical discussion 
 for themselves. Doubts have more than once been expressed 
 regarding them, and several features in them have been thought 
 strange. One of these is the doxology at the end of chap, xvi 
 where we find it stands very detached, after the concluding bene- 
 diction, and old authorities place it at the end of chap. xiv. 
 Another is the nature of the contents of chap, xvi., in connection 
 with which we have to remember Origen's statement that with 
 Marcion the two last chapters were wanting.-' This may be attri- 
 buted to the famous habit of wanton mutilation in which the 
 
 ^ At the end of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Libr. x. 43) 
 on the Doxology, xvi. 25-27, he says : — Caput hoc (the Doxology) Marcion, a 
 quo scripturje evangeliose atque apostolicaj interpolatse sunt, de hac epistola 
 penitus abstulit et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo loco, ubi scriptum est : Omne 
 autem quod non est ex fide, peccatum est. (Romans xiv. 23), usque ad finem 
 cuncta disseouit. 
 
Ohap. Ill] rjjj. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 353 
 
 fathers said that he indulged with regard to the Scriptures of the 
 New Testament, yet it is quite as probable in itself that the MSS. 
 which he used were without these chapters. But a much more 
 important objection than these, and one which is taken from a 
 totally different point of view from that of most scholars, is the 
 contrast presented by these two chapters to the whole character 
 and contents of the Epistle. 
 
 The section, xv. 1-13, contains nothing that has not been said 
 better.than here at xii. 1, sqq. To what end does the Apostle recur 
 to exhortations he has already given, and how do they come to be 
 in a tone such as we do not hear in the whole of the rest of the 
 Epistle ? Such an appendix, in which the interests of the Jewish 
 Christians are too obviously pressed forward, could not appear 
 desirable except to another writer. How palpably is the Messianic 
 passage quoted in ver. 3 brought in, in order to claim the support 
 of the Old Testament for the good doctrine here to be given? 
 How can we believe that in an Epistle of such a nature, after all 
 that has gone before, the Apostle could all at once make such a 
 concession to the Jews as to caU Jesus Christ a minister of 
 circumcision, in order to prove the truth of God by the fulfilment 
 of the promises made to the fathers.^ The series of Old Testament 
 passages which follows at ver. 9 is adduced for the sole purpose of 
 soothing the feelings of the Jewish Christians with regard to the 
 admission of the Gentile Christians, this being spoken of as on a 
 different level from that of the Jewish Christians, and a matter of 
 pure grace (ra Se edvq virep eXeou? So^daat, top Qeov, ver. 9). The 
 author may have had before him the passage ix. 24-29, but the 
 comparison brings out very strongly the difference in the mode of 
 argument adopted in the two passages. At ix. 24 the grand sweep 
 
 1 Olshausen remarks on xv. 7, 8 : — "It ia curious how the Apostle represents 
 the relation of Christ to the Jews as one of obligation. In consequence of the 
 promises made to the fathers, God was, as it were, obliged to send Christ to the 
 Jews for the sake of his own truthfulness, while Christ was preached to the 
 Gentiles merely out of mercy. AU this is to be understood of course merely kct' 
 SvBpanov, for in chap. x. Paul finds faidt with the Jews for thinking that God's 
 grace was theirs by right." Is it of course that the Apostle speaks kut 
 Mpanov, i.e. says the opposite of what he said before ? 
 
 VOL. I. Z 
 
354 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 of his discussion brings the Apostle to speak of the call of the 
 heathen, and he justifies it, and the exclusion of a part of the Jews 
 which was connected with it, from prophecies of the Old Testa- 
 ment. But here, at xv. 9-12, we have a mere congeries of Old 
 Testament passages, which is to remind the Jewish Christians 
 whose conduct so imperfectly answered to the ro avro <^poveLv ev 
 aXKr\Koi<; Kara Xpicrrov 'Irja-ovv, and to the 6/j,o6vfiaBov ev evl 
 a-TO/Mari Bo^a^ew rov @eov, Kai, irarepa rov k. rj. 'I. Xp., that in 
 the Old Testament itself the calling of the Gentiles to a common 
 thanksgiving with the Jews had been the subject of prophecy. 
 We wonder still more, in what follows, how the Apostle could 
 think it necessary to apologise for writing to the Eomans at alL 
 If the Eoman Christians, to whom the Epistle is addressed, were 
 not merely so thoroughly well-intentioned, but also so filled with 
 all knowledge, and so fitted to admonish themselves, as the Apostle 
 declares his conviction that they are in ver. 14, it would certainly 
 have been quite superfluous to write such an epistle to them. 
 Nor could they have required that Trvev/iaTiKov ')(api,(7iw, which he 
 says at i. 11 that he was anxious to communicate to them, in order 
 to establish their faith, for the pneumatical is the essence of the 
 deeper knowledge. We should then have to regard it as a mere 
 captatio ienevolentim that he uses such expressions in this passage, 
 and it must have been with the same object that he calls his 
 Epistle in some sort a great boldness, for which it is necessary to 
 excuse himself — his excuse being that he writes as one who, 
 because of tlie grace that is given to him of God, can put them in 
 mind when he writes that, as a minister of Jesus Christ, he fills 
 the priestly office of a preacher of the Gospel among the Gentiles. 
 He appeals to his mission to the Gentiles, and when he says, ver. 18, 
 that he will not dare to ascribe anything falsely to himself that 
 Christ was said to have done through him, but which, in fact, had 
 been done not by him but by others, his apology seems meant to 
 meet the supposition that he had claimed something for himself 
 unwarrantably, to which his preaching of the Gospel did not 
 entitle him, his principle being never to interfere in the province 
 
Chap. III.] yi/^B EPISTLE TO TEE ROMANS. 355 
 
 of another (20). But that which made him seek to ward off the 
 appearance of such an assumption is nothing else than the Epistle 
 to the Eoman Church itself, that ToXfirjpoTepov eypafa, to which he 
 had been forced by the pressure of circumstances, and in the course 
 of his missionary caUing (23). This bold Epistle having once been 
 written, it seemed to the author of chap. xv. that the only way to 
 remove the bad impression it must make was to represent the 
 Apostle as declaring that he is aware he ought to keep within the 
 limits of his own missionary sphere, and that he had been trying 
 to respect these limits when he formed this relation to the Eoman 
 Church. With this aim he speaks, ver. 19, of the sphere of activity 
 over which he had travelled from Jerusalem to Illyricum. But 
 how can we suppose that the Apostle himself could speak of 
 Jerusalem as the starting-point of his career, and that, in order to 
 put this strongly, he counted even Arabia, Syria, and Cilicia, wliere 
 he himself declares. Gal. i. 22, that he entered on his career as a 
 preacher of the Gospel, as being round about Jerusalem ? Is not this 
 too evidently a concession made to the Jewish Christians, according 
 to whose views every preacher of the Gospel could only start from 
 Jerusalem? Commentators do not know what to make of this 
 Illyricum ; there is no trace whatever of any journey of Paul's into 
 that rude, inhospitable land, which at that time was still inhabited 
 by barbarians. It seems easier to take the expression as a merely 
 oratorical one — as if he had touched the extreme borders of this 
 province on some minor Macedonian journey, perhaps — than to 
 interpret it in the light of the political importance which attached 
 to Illyricum in the Eoman way of speaking, as the border-land 
 between east and west. These two limits, Jerusalem and Illyricum, 
 as well as the expression ireifK'qposKivai to evayyeKiop XpiaTov, 
 which must mean that he had filled this space completely with 
 the Gospel, are meant to represent the Apostle's task as having 
 lain in the East, and being now completely discharged. This is 
 also the meaning of what he says afterwards (ver. 23), that in these 
 parts, i.e. in the East, he had no more room to preach the Gospel, 
 as if the whole of these districts were so full of the Gospel he had 
 
356 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part II. 
 
 preached that there was nothing more for him to do there. How 
 the Apostle could say this is a question which no one can help 
 asking, and after all that has been said no reasonable explanation 
 has yet been found. But is it not clear that the reason why the 
 Apostle is said to have so completely finished his work in the East 
 is that his crossing the threshold of the "West may appear to have 
 been a step which circumstances forced him to take, and which would 
 provide him with the best justification for writing to the Christians 
 of Eome ? He stands now on the border of the West ; only in the 
 West can he find a further sphere of action ; but why does he here 
 speak of being bound in honour only to preach the Gospel in those 
 places where Christ was not yet named ? And when he speaks of 
 his long cherished wish to visit Eome, and sees it about to he 
 fulfilled, why does he at once look beyond Eome to far-distant 
 Spain ? Does it not seem as if there were here drawn a geogra- 
 phical line between two apostolic spheres of action, and that Eome 
 and Italy, with the countries near them, were reserved for an 
 ecclesiastical province, in which the Apostle could only appear as 
 a passing traveller, in order to avoid trespassing on the sphere of 
 another ? To the author of chap xv. Eome and Italy and the neigh- 
 bouring countries were already under another apostolic authority, the 
 sphere of which extended so far that not till he reached Spain could 
 our Apostle feel himself upon a soil where he could freely exercise 
 his mission as Apostle to the Gentiles without any fear of build- 
 ing on another's foundation, or encroaching on another's territory. 
 Although Gaul was still at that time an unconverted country, it was 
 considered, as we find in the later traditions respecting its conversion 
 as a country so closely connected with, and belonging to the Eoman 
 Church, that the Apostle could merely pass through it on his 
 journey. The writer who could make the Apostle speak and act 
 in this way must have been a Paulinist of similar sentiments with 
 the author of the Acts, who, like him, had no scruples in letting 
 his Apostle make all possible concessions to the Jewish Christians. 
 These allowed him to take his stand with the other Apostles, not 
 as one of equal claims, but only as a preacher of the Gospel, or as 
 
Chap. III.] fSE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 357 
 
 a \eiTovpyo<} 'Ifjtjov Xpiarov eh to, eOvt], as he is called in verse 16, 
 with an expression evidently chosen in order to avoid calling him 
 by the name of "Apostle," which name they had not yet granted 
 him. All this goes to excuse the To\/ir]pdTepov eypa-<lra, but how 
 could Paul himself ever think of making an excuse for his Epistle ? 
 If he really believed, according to the principle ascribed to him 
 (verse 20), that his field of work lay only in the exclusively 
 Gentile world, he would never have conceived the idea of writing 
 an apostolic Epistle to the Eomans. For what was it but an 
 okKoZofielv et? aWorpiov Oe/Mekiov for him to write an Epistle of 
 such a nature as this Epistle to the Eomans to a Jewish- Christian 
 Church not founded by him, and with the view of establishing it 
 in Christianity by imparting to it such a ■n-vev^ariKov xapic/J-a, 
 i. 11, or rather, of raising it from its attachment to Judaism to the 
 really evangelical Christianity ? Whether this instruction was 
 conveyed by word of mouth or by letter, the essential principle 
 was the same. In either case the Apostle would have acted in a 
 manner which could not be reconciled with the principle of his 
 apostolic labours, which he himself enunciates in this passage. 
 Is this probable ? and why does he express himself in this manner 
 only at the conclusion of his Epistle, and not at the beginning ? 
 Is not the commencement of the Epistle in complete contradiction 
 with the end, when in the commencement the Apostle not only 
 does not express the least anxiety to justify himself in writing 
 such an Epistle, but declares it to be his duty to work, without 
 making any exception, and without regard to any distinction of 
 nationality or cultivation, among the nations^ — the edvr], an expres- 
 sion to which he gives the widest possible meaning ? It is 
 impossible that the Apostle himself should have appended such an 
 excuse to his Epistle. A further ground of doubt with regard to 
 the genuineness of this chapter, is the relation in which it stands 
 to the second Epistle to the Corinthians, especially to the passage 
 X. 13-18. Here we have the original, from which the unknown 
 author has borrowed the material for his supplement to the apostolic 
 Epistle. The two sections correspond to each other both in contents 
 
358 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part II. 
 
 and expression in such a way that we can only ask whether it is 
 probable that the Apostle here makes use of what he had at an 
 earlier period said to the Corinthians, or whether, considering the 
 tendency with which it is done here, it must be the work of 
 another. As the subject of the whole passage, 2 Cor. x. 13-18, is 
 Kavxacrdai,, so in Eomans xv. 1 7, the Apostle speaks of his Kavxncni 
 iv XpicTTO) 'Irja-ov, with reference to to, tt/so? tov Qeov, and as in 
 2 Cor. xii. 12, he says, to, arjiiela rov atrocrroKov KaTeipyaa-Bt] ev 
 a-rjueioK Koi Tepaat ical Bwd/xeai, so in Eom. xv. 18, he will not 
 dare to say anything respecting wv ov KaTetpyaaaTo XpiffTo<; Bi 
 ifiov Xoyai Koi epya (compare 2 Cor. x. 11) ev Svvd/xei a-rj/xemv 
 Kol TspaTcov, ev Bvvd/j,ei irvei iiaro<; dyiov. The chief point of the 
 parallel, however, lies in Eomans xv. 20, where the words of the 
 Apostle that he is cfuXoTi/iov/xevo'; evayyeXl^eadac ov^ bwov avofiacr- 
 07] XpicTTo?, iva fjirj e7r' aWoTpiov dep.e\iov oi,KoZofj,u> are very 
 clearly borrowed from what he lays down as his rule, 2 Cor. x. 16, 
 619 Ta virepeKeiva vjjlwv ovk ev aWoTpia) Kavovi et? ra eToijia kuv^- 
 7]cracr6at, or as he says in the same sense, in verse 1 5, ov Kavy(acr6ai 
 ev dXKorpioK; KOTroi'i. In this last passage, the Apostle speaks of 
 his /cau^ao-^at, which was founded on the objective success of his 
 labours, as contrasted with the vain, empty, immoderate, subjective, 
 and arbitrary Kav)(aa6ai of his opponents, which is only a Kav^our- 
 6ai ev dX\oTploL<; kottoi';. They make the labours of other men 
 the subject of their own boasting^arrogantly intrude on his apo- 
 stolic province, appropriate to themselves what he had achieved in 
 the preaching of the Gospel, and give themselves out to be the 
 true founders of the Corinthian Church, just as if he had never 
 been in Corinth at all. In opposition to these men, he declares 
 that it is not his way to boast of himself at the expense of others, 
 or where others have already laboured to appropriate their work to 
 himself; that he always adheres to his rule to remain within the 
 measure of the sphere of action allotted to him by God, and that 
 he hopes through the increase of the faith in the Corinthian Church 
 to become so great in his own Kavwv that he may even have an 
 abundance, so that he may preach the Gospel even beyond Corinth, 
 
Chap, in.] j,^^ EPISTLE TO TEE ROMANS. 359 
 
 without boasting " in another man's line of things made ready to 
 his hand." in Eomans xv. the Apostle is made to apply this rule 
 of his apostolic labours in 3uch a sense as to declare that he did 
 not consider himself justified in going to Rome except in passing. 
 He is made to say that he is only coming to Eome on his "way, to 
 be at once sent forward by the Eomans on his further journey, as 
 soon at least as he has enjoyed their company as much as is 
 possible under the circumstances, verse 24 ( . , . iav {>/iS>v 
 irpwTov a-iro fiepov; efiirXTjaeai)} He was gomg to Eome then, 
 only as a traveller who was going further ; but where was he going 
 to ? He was to make the shortest possible stay in the neighbour- 
 hood of Eome : he was going on to Spain. Now this journey of 
 the Apostle into Spain is one of the most improbable events 
 that we hear of in connection with him. No one else says any- 
 thing about it, and if this passage is thus the only testimony in 
 favour of its occurrence, nothing can be more doubtful than the 
 supposition that the Apostle ever entertained even the idea of such 
 a journey. We must consider what motive he could have had for 
 it. Because the Apostle had so filled the East with his preaching, 
 that he could not remain in it without being idle, and because in 
 the "West, if he went to Eome he would be in a place where he 
 could not remain without building on another man's foundation, 
 nothing remained but that he should go to Spain ! How com- 
 pletely unnatural all this is. Why then had he so great a desire 
 to go to Eome, if, as he himself is obliged to confess, he has nothing 
 at all to do there, but must appear as a stranger, perhaps even as 
 an unwelcome guest ? If the author of chapter xv. did not invent 
 this journey into Spain entirely out of his own head, we can only 
 explain his idea by referring to the chapter of the Corinthian 
 Epistle on which he founds. The Apostle writes to the Corinthians, 
 X. 15, 16, "I hope eU to, vTrepeieeiva ifimv evayyeKi^ea-dat.. He 
 thus expresses his intention to extend his missionary journeys 
 still further, and to preach the Gospel in the countries lying 
 
 ' "Non quantum vellem, sed quantum licebit," as Grotius strikingly puts the 
 sense of these words. 
 
360 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part 11. 
 
 beyond Corinth and Achaia. The word wrepeKetva, which indicates 
 even more exactly than the word e-ireKeiva that which lies beyond, 
 on the other side, is very elastic, and may indicate a country at a 
 distance as well as a nearer one. As Kome and Italy were reserved 
 for another apostolic authority, and the missionary sphere of this 
 latter was to be kept as large as possible, it might very easily 
 occur to the writer that this WepiKeiva must mean Spain. The 
 translation of el? to. inrepeKUva evar/yeXi^ea-dai, into iropeveaOai eig 
 T^i/ XttuvIov, shows beyond doubt that the author of chapter xt. 
 had the second Epistle to the Corinthians before him, and that he 
 utilised the principle enunciated by the Apostle himself for the 
 purposes of the Judaising tendency (from which standpoint this 
 alien appendix to the Epistle to the Romans has to be considered). 
 Verses 25-27 contain a further proof of this dependence. The 
 subject here treated of is the journey of the Apostle to Jerusalem, 
 for the purpose of transmitting the contribution made in Macedonia 
 and Achaia, to the Christians of that city ; and this is spoken of 
 in the same manner as the Apostle speaks of it himself in 2 Cor. 
 The contribution is represented as a duty on account of the Koivtovia 
 which should unite the Christians of those churches with that of 
 Jerusalem, 2 Cor. viii. 13, 14, ix. 12, sq} How clearly is the 
 Jewish Christian interest of the author of chap. xv. expressed, 
 when he recommends this contribution as only a labour of Christian 
 love, and represents it as a token of thankfulness from the Gentile 
 Christians, which they have reason to show, since the Christians of 
 Jerusalem have caused them to participate in the irvevpLarnca, the 
 blessings of Christianity. On this subject the Apostle says nothing 
 
 ^ The dependence on 1 and 2 Corintliians is especially otyious in Komans xv. 
 27, where ©(^fiXeVai avTtitv iluiv fl yafi Toiy -jrvfvfxaTiKois, etc., is only another 
 expression for the thought in 1 Cor. ix. 1 1 ; el ijfif'it vfiiv ra irvevfiaTtKa fa-Vfipa/ifv. 
 The author might also be led to this by 2 Cor. ix. 6, where there is mention of 
 a (jireiptiv and Bepi^nv. There is also an obvious agreement in expression as 
 is generally the case with second-hand writers of this kind. Compare hiaitovfiv 
 Tois dyi'ois, Romans xv. 25, and Siaxovia els tovs Ayiovs, 2 Cor. ix. 1 ; Koivavla 
 fls Toils 7rTa>xovs t£>v dyiav ev 'lep., Romans xv. 26, and Koivavia ttjs biaKovias 
 TTJs els TOVS iyiovs, 2 Cor. viii. 4. The expression tiXoyia, Romans xv. 29, occurs 
 repeatedly at 2 Cor. ix. 5. 
 
Chap. III.] tHB EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 361 
 
 in those passages of his Epistle in which this idea, if he had ever 
 entertained it, must have been present to his mind, he does not 
 even attach this sense to the Koivmvia of which he speaks ; there 
 is not in any way the least hint that he had ever thought of the 
 Church at Jerusalem as the Mother Church, as sustaining such a 
 relation to the GentUe-Christian Churches. It is he himself and 
 no one else, who introduced the Gospel to them. It would not 
 accord with the independence on which he insists with so much 
 emphasis as distinguishing his preaching of the Gospel, if we 
 found him representing the Christian blessings which he had been 
 the means of imparting to these Churches as a benefit conferred 
 on them from Jerusalem. This account of the matter is due to 
 a different man, the author of chap. xv. He shows himself to be 
 a different man, who can look beyond the Apostle's time, when 
 he speaks of the dangers by which the Apostle was menaced in 
 Judsea, as standing before his mind in a manner which we do 
 not trace elsewhere, except with the author of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, XX. 22.-' 
 
 • It may be worth while to mention that the passage Eom. xv. 28, and its 
 journey to Spain, have been used as the key to the Epistle by a writer who 
 admits the correctness of the method I have adopted in examining the aim and 
 the line of thought of the Epistle, but advances a view directly opposed to mine. 
 This is the main purport of a work by Th. Schott, Licentiat und Privatdocent 
 at Brlangen : "Der Eomerbrief seinem Endzweck und Gedankengang nach. 
 Erlangen, 1858." The subject is regarded from the point of view of the Apostle's 
 projected journey. He stands at the most important crisis in his missionary 
 career, being about to pass from the East to the West. He sees himself already 
 in the West, at the utmost limit of his career, but this limit is distant ; the 
 ways which lead to it, and all the intermediate steps have to be seriously con- 
 sidered. This is the occasion which produced the Epistle to the Komans. So 
 extensive a line of operations required to have its basis well secured, and that 
 basis could be nowhere but at Kome, and in the Roman Church. This Church 
 then had first to be won for his design ; this was what determined the character 
 of the Epistle, and this gives us the point of view from which alone the contents 
 of the Epistle can be correctly interpreted. Cf. p. 99, sq., the section on the 
 results of the preliminary inquiry. " To come to terms with the Eoman Church, 
 it was necessary for Paul to set forth at length the nature of his apostolic activity, 
 and the principles by which he was led in carrying out his calling. The Church 
 which he wishes to make his point of departure for his new labours, which is to 
 give him the key to his new field of activity and some hope of success in it. 
 
3(i2 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part 11. 
 
 The last chapter has been frequently impugned, and even apart 
 from that which precedes it, it certainly produces the impression of 
 a later origin. The long series of persons whom the Apostle greets 
 has quite the appearance of a catalogue of those who were known 
 at the time as the notabilities of the primitive Eoman Church. As 
 the relation of the Apostle Paul to the Eoman Church became 
 afterwards a subject of party strife, it might easily seem to a 
 follower of Paul that it would be well to give a proof by such a 
 document as this, that the Apostle stood in very close and con- 
 fidential relations with the best-known members of the original 
 Church, and that many of them had been of special service to 
 him. This is particularly mentioned, verse 4, oiVti/c? inrkp ttJ? 
 ■y}rvxrj<; yttou Tov iavrav TpdxrfKov {nredrjKav, and verse 6, rJTi<; TroWa 
 eKo-rrlaa-ev eU jj/ta?. To make the Apostle's connection with these 
 
 this Church mast first of all be assured that the principles and views on which 
 his apostolate to the Gentiles was based were in conformity with its own 
 Christian faith." The writer deals mainly with this point in working out his 
 view of the aim of the Epistle to the Romans. He says expressly, p. 101, " that 
 the Apostle selects from the general body of the evangelical Christian doctrine, 
 first what was important to him as the determining principles for his work among 
 the Gentile Christians, and then what might serve to show that his apostoUc 
 procedure was in thorough agreement with the true principles of the gospeL 
 But in this view it is clear that the contents of the Epistle are nothing but a con- 
 fession of faith which the Apostle lays before the Christians of Rome in order to 
 convince them that on the basis of such a belief they may well take up his cause 
 and promote bis work. This point shows as well as any other how destitute 
 this writer's view is both of any true foundation in history, and of the true 
 evangelical spirit which alone can appreciate Panlinism, and sympathise with its 
 opposition to Judaism. On this subject two completely opposite views are 
 current. According to the view which is opposed to mine, the importance of 
 Paulinism consists in nothing more than this, that the Apostle traverses wide 
 districts of the world as a wandering missionary, and that at last his apostolical 
 pilgrim stafif touches the soil of Spain. In my view the essential interest of 
 Paulinism does not consist in its passage outwardly from East to West, to a 
 Gentile world where missionary labour had not even the support of a Jewish 
 diaspora, but in the deep-rooted opposition, in virtue of which the true gospel of 
 Christianity overcame Jewish particularism, and proved able to break through 
 a barrier which was absolutely irreconcilable with the absolute idea of the One 
 God, who stood over Jew and Gentile alike. The outcome of Paulinism is that 
 universalism which, at its highest point, as it appears in the Epistle to the Romans, 
 towers so far above the jjarticularism of Judaism, and declares that no national 
 
Chap. III.] ^pHE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 363 
 
 early Eomans Christians appear more distinctly, mention is 
 repeatedly made of relatives whom he had among them ; verse 7, 
 Tovs <7vyyevel<; /j,ov ; verse 11, tov avyyevrj fiov. Also verse 13, 
 TTji' firjTepa avrov Koi e/j,ov, a word is used, to say the least, by 
 which the idea of relationship is suggested. If we add verse 21, 
 where avyyevel'; of the Apostle are named amongst those greeting, 
 we may justly ask in what other passage of his genuine Epistles 
 does the Apostle speak so much of his relations ? Besides, how 
 suspicious is the mention and description of some of these persons ? 
 AquUa and Priscilla are in Ephesus, 1 Cor. xvi. 1 9 ; according to 
 Eomans xvi. 3 they are in Eome. It is possible that in the not 
 very long interval between the composition of these two Epistles 
 they may have returned from Ephesus to Eome ; but this is only 
 a mere possibility, of which there is no further proof. As there 
 
 advantages or privileges can be recognised as having any foundation in the idea 
 of God. 
 
 It is the prevalent opinion that the Eoman Church was more Gentile than 
 Jewish Christian, but it is as clear as ever that the whole tenor of the Epistle 
 points the other way. If the Eoman Church was mainly Jewish Christian, we 
 can easily account for its origin, from the intercourse of the large Jewish colony 
 in Eome with the mother country. But how can a Gentile Christian Church 
 have come into existence there? Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles knows 
 nothing of the fact, and stands before the Church as a perfect stranger. And 
 how lofty a pitch of Christian faith must this Gentile Christian Church have 
 attained to, if the Apostle's object in the weighty discussions of his Epistle be 
 merely to obtain their consent and sympathy with views which he supposes them 
 to be already familiar with ! If he wrote the Epistle when in the act of taking 
 the momentous step from the East to the West, and with the view of having the 
 Roman Church for his basis of operations in his remoter labours, what a grand 
 mistake must he have made ! At this interesting epoch of his life he devoted 
 Ms energies to a, plan which, whether or not the Apostle reaUy thought of it, 
 there is every reason for thinking was never executed. What evidence is there 
 that the Apostle ever was in Spain ? Thus the whole theory of the Epistle which 
 we spoke of resolves itself into a mass of arbitrary and unsupported assump- 
 tions; and the more we understand the Apostle's thought, the more strange does 
 it appear that this grand Epistle can have owed its origin to the project of », 
 journey to Spain, which moreover is mentioned in a part of the Epistle which 
 we have other reasons for suspecting. Such commentators should first of all 
 seek to comprehend the genius of Paulinism ; then instead of making Panhmsm 
 and Judaism walk together hand in hand, they would see that what is most 
 characteristic of the Apostle is just his opposition to Judaism. 
 
364 LIFE AND WORK OF PA UL. [Part II. 
 
 are many other suspicious things in this chapter, the supposition 
 is forced upon us that they are only named because they would 
 naturally be placed at the head of such a catalogue as this, in 
 which the author designed to enumerate the original Eoman 
 Christians who were in close connection with the Apostle. It is 
 justly remarked^ that the words 1 Cor. xvi. 19, added to the mention 
 of Aquila and Priscilla, avv rrj kut oXkov avrav eicic)uq<Ti,q, are 
 precisely the same as those in Eomans xvi. 5, koL ttjv kut oIkov 
 avrmv eKKK'qaiav. This suggests the answer to the question, how 
 does Epaenetus, the beloved of Paul, who is said to be the first- 
 fruits of the Christians in Asia (verse 5) appear at Eome ? This 
 description is evidently taken from the conclusion of the first 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, where it is said of Stephanas, verse 15, 
 on earXv dirapxv t^? ' A')(aia<i. This is now transferred to one of 
 the Eoman Christians, only instead of 'A^mcl';, (which is the 
 reading of some Mss. at Eom. xvi. 5) we find 'Aaia^, since 
 the honour of the anrap^ of any particular district can only be 
 applied to one person. But aTrapyr) 'IraXta?, which we might 
 have expected, would not do : Epsenetus, the dirapxVi ^^ ^° ^^ 
 the Apostle's own convert, like Stephanas, 1 Cor. xv. 15 ; and 
 Andronicus and Junia had been converted to Christianity even 
 before the conversion of the Apostle himself (verse 7). These two 
 Eoman Christians of so early a date could also be made avyyevei^ 
 of the Apostle, and thus placed in the closest relations with him ; 
 and the phrase eTrtcnj/juot ev to2<; aiTO(TroKoi<s might suggest that 
 they had stood on friendly terms with the older Apostles. How 
 they could be called his (Tvvai-)Qj,akoDToi, at a time when the 
 Apostle had not yet endured any lengthy imprisonment, is in- 
 explicable (the earlier (fjvXaKot, 2 Cor. vi. 5, xi. 23, could not justify 
 such a description) ; but it is a very natural prolepsis for a later 
 writer to whom such traits possessed great interest. That in such 
 
 ' D. Schulz, Theol. Stud, viiid Kritik. 1829, iii. page 609. Sohnlz urges several 
 reasons against chap. xvi. in his Review of Eichhorn's and de Wette's "Ein- 
 leitung," and thinks that Paul addressed it more probably to Ephesus than to 
 Rome, as if Paul must have been the writer of it in any case. 
 
Chap. III.] y^TB EPISTLE TO THE R0MAK8. 
 
 365 
 
 a connection as this there follows a section respecting the Judaising 
 false teachers, is quite in harmony with our theory, as the writer, 
 placing himself 'in the person of the Apostle, would consider an 
 argument against such opponents to be one of the chief criteria of 
 an Epistle of Paul. The description has no bearing on the rest of 
 the Epistle, and is not in the least characteristic ; the expressions 
 are the vaguest and most general that could be used on the subject. 
 On the other hand there are certain phrases as verse 20, ©eo? 
 (7VVTpi-\}reL rov Xaravav inro tov'; ttoBw; vfiwv, verse 1 8, BovXevovcro 
 ry eavT&v KoiXia, compare Phil. iii. 19, which are meant to give 
 in intensity what is wanting in colour. To this categoiy belongs 
 the expression (ver. 4) virep ttJ? '>jrv^rj<! fiov tov iavrav Tpa')(r)Kov 
 wreOrjKav. If we add to this the awkward way in which verses 
 17-20 are introduced between the greetings, verses 1-16, and 21-24, 
 and the uncertainty of the position of the concluding doxology, we 
 certainly possess sufficient grounds for considering this chapter as 
 not written by Paul. The criticism of the last chapters leads to 
 but one result : they must be held to be the work of a Paulinist, 
 writing in the spirit of the Acts of the Apostles, seeking to soothe 
 the Judaists, and to promote the cause of unity, and therefore 
 tempering the keen anti-Judaism of Paul with a milder and more 
 conciliatory conclusion to his Epistle.^ 
 
 ^ If these two chapters be an appendix of later date, and if the above be a true 
 aooount of the aim they were to serve, they afford us some evidence both about 
 the reception which the Apostle's Epistle encountered at Eome, and about the 
 continued preponderance of the Judaistio element in the Koman Church. 
 Compare pn this, and on the data furnished to the same effect by the Epistles 
 which hear to have been written by the Apostle in his imprisonment at Rome, 
 especially that to the Philippians, Sohwegler, Nachap. Zeit. i. 297, ii. 123. 
 
 END OF VOL. I. 
 
 CBjlnSutai) ISnlSeraitB 5|re2a : 
 T. AUD A. CONSTABLE, PRTNTEES TO HER MAJESTY. 
 
14, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London; 
 20, South Febderiok. Street, Edinburgh. 
 
 CATALOGUE 
 
 OP 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NORGATE'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 iohylus. Agamemnon. Greek Text re- 
 vised and translated by JohnF. Davies, 
 B.A. 8vo, cloth. 3s. 
 
 i (Syed Ameer) Life of Mohainmed. A 
 Critical Examination of the Life and 
 Teachings of Mohammed, from a 
 Mohammedan Standpoint, including 
 Chapters on Polygamy, Slavery, Mos- 
 lem Rationalism, Moslem Mysticism, 
 &c. Crown 8vo, cloth. 9s. 
 
 itwell (Professor H.) Table of Aryan 
 (Indo-European) Languages, showing 
 their Classification and Affinities, with 
 copious Notes ; to which is added, 
 Grimm's Law of the Interchange of 
 Mute Consonants, Avith numerous Illus- 
 trations. A Wall Map for the use of 
 Colleges and Lecture -rooms. 2nd 
 Edition. Mounted with rollers. 10.v. 
 — Table of the Aryan Languages, with 
 Notes and Illustrations. 4to, boards. 
 
 7s. 6d. 
 gnostic's Progress, An, from the Known 
 to the Unknown. 268 pp. Crown 
 i 8vo, cloth. 5s. 
 
 itonister (Koy. Dr. J.) Glossary of Oomish 
 Names, Ancient and Modern, Local, 
 Family, Personal, 20,000 Celtic and 
 other Names in use in CornwaU. 8vo, 
 cloth. 12s. 
 
 Ifrnabas' Epistle, in Greek, from the 
 Sinaitic Manuscript of the Bible, with 
 a Translation by S. Sharpe. Crown 
 8to, cloth. 2s. 6d. 
 
 itratt (A.) Physical Metempiric. By the 
 late Alfred Barratt. With a Portrait. 
 8vo, cloth. 10«- 6^^. 
 
 Barratt (A.) Physical Ethics, orthe Science 
 of Action. 8 vo, cloth. 12s. 
 
 Baur (P. 0.) Church History of the First 
 Three Centuries. Translated from the 
 Third German Edition. Edited by 
 Eev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. 8vo, 
 cloth. 21s. 
 
 Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, his 
 
 Life and Work, his Epistles and Doc- 
 trine. A Contribution to a Critical 
 History of Primitive Christianity. 
 Translated by Eev. A. Menzies. 2 
 vols. 8vo, cloth. 21s. 
 
 Bayldon (Eev. G.) Icelandic Grammar. An 
 Elementary Grammar of the Old Norsa 
 or Icelandic Language. 8vo, cl. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Beard (Eev. C.) Lectures on the Eefor- 
 mation of the Sixteenth Century in 
 its Eelation to Modem Thought and 
 Knowledge. (Hibbert Lectures, 1883.) 
 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. 
 
 Port Eoyal, a Contribution to the 
 
 History of Eeligion and Literature in 
 France. 2 vols. 8vo. 12s. 
 
 Bentham et Hooker Genera Plantarum, ad 
 exemplaria imprimis in HerbariisKew- 
 ensibus servata definita ; auctoribus 
 G. Bentham et J. D. Hooker. Vol. I. 
 1, 16s., L 2, 10s. 6d. Vol. IL 56s. 
 Vol. IIL 56s. Imp. 8vo, cloth. Vol. L 
 Part 3, is out of print. 
 
 Bernstein and Kirsch. Syriao Ohresto- 
 mathy and Lexicon. Chrestomathia 
 Syriaca cum Lexico. 2 vols, in 1. 
 8vo, clotL 7«. 6d. 
 
Williams and Norgate^s 
 
 Bible, translated by Samuel Sharpe, being 
 a Eevision of the Authorized English 
 Version. 5th Edition of the Old Tes- 
 tament, 9th Edition of the New Tes- 
 tament. 8vo, roan. 4s. 6d. 
 
 vide also Testament. 
 
 Bible for Young People, A Critical, His- 
 torical, and Moral Handbook to the 
 Old and New Testaments. By Dr. H. 
 Oort and Dr. J. Hooykaas, with the 
 assistance of Dr. Kuenen. Translated 
 from the Dutch by the Eev P. H. 
 Wicksteed. 6 vols. Crown 8vo. 20s. 
 
 Bisset (A.) Short History of the EngUsb 
 Parliament. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 
 
 7s. 
 
 Notes on the Anti-Oom-Law Struggle. 
 
 Svo, cloth. 9s. 
 
 Bleak (P.) Lectures on the Apocalypse. 
 Edited by Dr. S. Davidson. Svo, 
 cloth. 10s. 6d 
 
 Oobbe (Miss P. Power) The Peak in Darien, 
 and other Inquiries touching Concerns 
 of the Soul and the Body. Crown 
 Svo, cloth. 7s. 6A 
 
 A Paithless World. With Additions 
 
 and a Preface. Svo, cloth. 2s. &d. 
 
 The Duties of Women, A Course 
 
 of Lectures delivered in London and 
 Clifton. 2nd Edition. Crown Svo, 
 cloth. 5s. 
 
 The Hopes of the Human Eaoe, Here- 
 after and Here. Essays on the Life 
 after Death. With a Preface having 
 special reference to Mr. Mill's Essay 
 on Religion. 2nd Edition. Cr. Svo. 5s. 
 
 • Alone to the Alone, Prayers for 
 
 Tlieists, by several Contributors. 3rd 
 Edition. Crown Svo, cloth. 5s. 
 
 Broken Lights. An Inquiry into 
 
 the Present Condition and Euture 
 
 Prospects of Eeligious Faith. 3rd 
 
 Edition. 5s. 
 
 Dawning Lights, An Inquiry con- 
 cerning the Secular Results of the New 
 Reformation. Svo, cloth. 5s. 
 
 Oobbe (Miss F, Power) Darwinism vlJ 
 Morals, and (13) other Essays (Reh.v .' 
 gion in Childhood, Unconscious Cere ■:■. i 
 bration, Dreams, the Devil, Auricula].^ . 
 Confession, &o. &c.). Svo, cloth. 5s 
 
 Crawford (Eev. Dr,) Horae Hebraiose, Cr -- 
 Svo, cloth. 4«. 6(i- 
 
 Orowfoot (J. E.) Fragmenta Evangelicf" " 
 quse ex antiqua recens. vers. Svriac ■' 
 Nov. Test, a Curetono vulg. GKecr,-.' 
 reddita, &c. 2 Parts ; and Ohserva :.-t. 
 tions, 1 Part. 4to. 20s' '' 
 
 Cureton (Dr, W,) History of the Martyrr 
 in Palestine, by Eusebius, in Syriac- 
 Edited and translated. Royal Svo 
 cloth. 10s. 6(i.-- 
 
 Dante's Inferno and Purgatorio, Trans 
 lated into Greek veree by Mussuru _ 
 Pasha, D.C.L. 2 vols. Svo, cloth. 
 
 each 12s ;■ : 
 
 Davids (T, W, Ehys) Lectures on th' 
 Origin and Growth of Religion, a 
 illustrated by some Points in the Hia : 
 tory of Indian Buddhism. (Hibber^;: 
 Lectures, 1S81.) Svo, cloth. 10s. 6d_ . 
 
 Day (Dr. P.) The Fishes of Great Biitai; ;:■ 
 and Ireland ; being a Natural History - 
 of such as are known to inhabit th ' " 
 Seas and Fresh Waters of the Britisf- - 
 Isles, including Remarks on their Ecr - 
 nomic Uses and Various Modes o~-- 
 Capture. 179 Plates. 2 vols, imj- ' 
 Svo, cloth. £5. 15s. 6aCa 
 
 Delitzsch (Dr. F.) The Hebrew Langna^ 
 viewed in the Light of Assyrian Ef 
 search. By Dr. P'red. Delitzsch, Prcr"-- 
 fessor of Assyriology at the Universit 
 of Leipzig. Crown Svo. 4i - 
 
 Dipavamsa, the ! a Buddhist Histories 
 Record in the Pali Language. Editei?^ i^ 
 with an English Translation, by Dr "^ I 
 H. Oldenberg. Svo, cloth. ^P^i 
 
 Echoes of Holy Thoughts : arranged a , 
 Pi'ivate jMeditations before a Firs -■ I 
 Communiim. 2nd Edition, with -^lo 
 Preface by Rev. J. Hamilton Thon' \iiiip 
 Printed with red lines. Fcap. SvAEt 
 cloth. 2s. ^cm. 
 
 .,»!ftals 
 
Catalogue. 
 
 igellxaidt (0.) Denmark in the Early Iron 
 Age. Illustrated by recent Discoveries 
 in the Peat-Mosses of Slesvig. 33 
 Plates (giving representations of up- 
 wards of a thousand objects), Maps, 
 and numerous other Illustrations on 
 wood. 4to, cloth. 31s. Gd 
 
 ihioa i or, the Ethics of Reason. By 
 Scotus Novanticiis. 8vo, cloth. 6s. 
 — vide Metapliysica Nova et Yetusta. 
 
 fans (G-eorge) An Essay on Assyriology, 
 By George Evans, M.A., Hibbert 
 'Pellow. Published for the Hibbert 
 Trustees. With 4to Tables of Assyrian 
 Inscriptions. 8vo, cloth. 5s. 
 
 volution of Christianity, The. By Charles 
 Gill. Second Edition, with Disserta- 
 tions in answer to Criticism. 8vo, 
 cloth. 12s. 
 
 wald's (Dr. H.) Commentary on the Pro- 
 f phets of the Old Testament. Trans- 
 lated by the Eev. J. E. Smith. Com- 
 plete in 5 vols. Vol. I. General In- 
 troduction, Yoel, Amos, Hosea and 
 Zakharya 9—11. Vol. II. Yesaya, 
 ! Obadya and Mikha. Vol. III. Nahtm, 
 I Ssephanya, Habaqqiiq, Zacharya, 
 Ydremya. Vol. IV. Hezekiel, Yesaya 
 |xl. — Ixvi. Vol. V. and last, Haggai, 
 ' Zakharya, Malaki, Jona, Baruc, 
 Daniel, Appendix and Index. 8vo, 
 cloth. 5 vols. Each 10s. 6d. 
 
 I — Commentary on the Psahns. Trans- 
 ^ lated by the Eev. E. Johnson, M.A. 
 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. Each 10s. 6d. 
 ■ — Commentary on the Book of Job, 
 with Translation. Translated from 
 the German by the Eev. J. Frederick 
 Smith. 8vo, cloth. 10s. Qd. 
 
 ankforter (Dr. 0.) Handbook of Pah; 
 being an Elementary Grammar, 
 Chrestomathy, and a Glossary, 
 cloth. 
 
 Wst (Dr. Jul.) Hebrew and Ohaldee 
 Lexicon to the Old Testament. 4th 
 Edition.improvedandenlarged. Trans- 
 lated by Eev. Dr. Samuel Davidson. 
 Eoyal Svo, cloth. 21s. 
 
 ' — Kept also half-bound morocco. 26«. 
 
 8vo, 
 16s. 
 
 Goldschmidt (H. E.) German Poetry; with 
 the English Versions of the best Trans- 
 lators. Poems of Goethe, SchiUer, 
 Freiligrath, Biirger, Heine, Uhland, 
 Korner, &c. &e. Translated by Car- 
 lyle, Anster, Blackie, Sir Th. llartin, 
 Shelley, Lord Ellesmere, Lord Lytton, 
 Coleridge, Longfellow, Edgar Bowring, 
 Gamett, &c. Svo, cloth. 5s. 
 
 Gostwick (J.) and R. Harrison, Outlines 
 of German Literature. Dedicated to 
 Thos. Carlyle. New Edition. 8vo. 10s. 
 
 Gotch (Eev. Dr. J. W.) Codex Cottonianus. 
 A Supplement to Tischendorf's Frag- 
 ments in the Monumenta Sacra. Toge 
 ther with a Synopsis of the Codex. 
 Facsimile. 4to, cloth. 7s. Qd. 
 
 Gould (Eev. S. Baring) Lost and Hostile 
 Gospels. An Account of the Toledoth 
 Jesher, two Hebrew Gospels circulat- 
 ing in the Middle Ages, and extant 
 Fragments of the Gospels of the first 
 Three Centuries of Petriue and Pauline 
 Origin. Crown Svo, cloth. 7s. Qd. 
 
 Hanson (Sir R. D.) The Apostle Paul and 
 the Preaching of Christianity in the 
 Primitive Church. By Sir E. D. 
 Hanson, Chief Justice of South Aus- 
 tralia, Author of " The Jesus of His- 
 tory," &c. Svo, cloth. (Published at 
 12s.) 7s. U. 
 
 Hardy (R. Spence) Manual of Buddhism in 
 its Modern Development. Translated 
 from Cingalese MSS. 2nd Edition, 
 with a complete Index and Glossary 
 Svo, cloth. 21s. 
 
 Eastern [Buddhist] Monachism i an 
 
 Account of the Origin, Laws, Disci- 
 pline, Sacred Writings, &c. &c. of 
 the Order of Mendicants founded by 
 Gotama Buddha. Svo, cloth. 1 2s. 
 
 Hariri. The Assembhes of Al Hariri. 
 Translated from the Arabic, with an 
 Introduction and Notes. Vol. I. In- 
 troduction and the first Twenty-six 
 Assemblies. By T. Chenery, Esq. Svo, 
 cloth. 10*. 
 
Williams and Norgate's 
 
 Hausrath. History of the New Testament 
 Times. The Time of Jesus. By Dr. 
 A. Hausrath, Professor of Theology, 
 Heidelberg. Translated by the Eevds. 
 C. T. Poynting and P. Quenzer. 2 
 vols. 8vo, cloth. 21s. 
 
 Hemans (Ohas. I.) Historic and Monn- 
 mental Eome. A Handbook for the 
 Students of Classical and Christian 
 Antiquities in the Italian Capital. 
 Crown 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d 
 
 ■ History of Mediseval Ohristianity and 
 
 Sacred Art in Italy (A.D. 900—1500). 
 2 vols. Crown 8vo, cloth. IBs. 
 
 Herbert (Hon. Auberon) The Party of Indi- 
 vidual Liberty. The Eight and Wrong 
 of Compulsion by the State. Crown 
 8vo, cloth. Is. 6(i. 
 
 Home (W.) Eeligious Life and Thought. 
 By William Home, M.A, Dundee, 
 Examiner in Philosophy in the Uni- 
 versity of St. Andrews ; Author of 
 " Eeason and Eevelation." Crown 
 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. 
 
 Keim's History of Jesus of Nazara, Con- 
 sidered in its connection with the 
 National Life of Israel, and related in 
 detail. Translated from the German 
 by Arthur Eansom. Vol.1. 2nd Edi- 
 tion. Introduction, Survey of Sources, 
 Sacred and Political Groundwork, 
 Eeligious Groundwork. Vol. II. The 
 Sacred Youth, Self-recognition, Deci- 
 sion. Vol. III. The First Preaching, 
 the Works of Jesus, the Disciples, and 
 Apostolic Mission. Vol. IV. Conflicts 
 and Disillusions, Strengthened Self- 
 confidence, Last Efforts in Galilee, 
 Signs of the approaching Fall, Eecog- 
 nition of the Messiah. Vol. V. The 
 Messianic Progress to Jerusalem, The 
 Entry into Jerusalem, The Decisive 
 Struggle, The Farewell, The Last Sup- 
 per. Vol. VI. Arrest and Pseudo- 
 Trial, The Death on the Cross, Burial 
 and Eesurrection, The Messiah's Place 
 in History. 8vo, cloth. Each 10s. &d. 
 
 Kuenen (Dr. A.) The Eeligion of Israel \ff\ 
 the Fall of the Jewish State. Trans* 
 lated by A. H. May. 3 vols. 8vo,-^ 
 
 31s. &dr: 
 
 Leottires on National Eeligious and- 
 
 Universal Eeligions. (Hibbert Lee-., . 
 tures, 1882.) 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6i.' ' 
 
 Laing and Huxley. Pre-Historio Eemaintf' ■ 
 of Caithness. By Samuel Laing, Esq.,:~ 
 with Notes on the Human Eemains-" 
 by Th. H. Huxley, F.E.S. 150 En-"-; 
 gravings. 8vo, cloth. ^s^- 
 
 Lane (E, W.) Arabic -English Lexioon,- 
 derived from the best and most copious" 
 Eastern Sources. Vols. I. to VII. (to 
 be completed in 8 vols.). Eoyal 4to." 
 Each 25s. - 
 
 Vol. VIII. Fasc. 1, shortly. 
 
 Latham (Dr, E. 6.) Two Dissertations on- 
 the Hamlet of Saxo-Grammaticus and . 
 of Shakespear. 8vo. 5s. 
 
 Lepsius (0, E.) Standard Alphabet for 
 reducing Unwritten Languages and 
 Foreign Graphic Systems to a Uniform- 
 Orthography in European Letters. ,. 
 2nd Edition. 8vo, cloth. 3s. -. 
 
 Letters to and from Eome in the Years:.-; 
 A.D. 61, 62, and 63. Translated by;. 
 C.V. S. (by Sir Eichard Hanson).:; 
 Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. M. . 
 
 Lindsay (Dr, James, M.A.) The Analytical^. 
 Interpretation of the System of Divines- 
 Government of Moses. 2 vols. 12 mo,- 
 cloth. 6s. ; 
 
 Linguistic Notes on some Obscure Pre-;"; 
 fixes in Greek and Latin. (4 Parts.) ;. 
 Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s. M. :; 
 
 Macan (E. W.) The Eesurrection of Jesns . 
 Christ. An Essay in three Chapters. . 
 Published for the Hibbert Trustees.^ 
 8vo, cloth. 6s.''- 
 
 Maokay (E, ¥.) Sketch of the Eise andU 
 Progress of Christianity. 8vo, cloth.^j | 
 (Published at 10s. U.) Bs.;;) 
 
Catalogue. 
 
 [alan (Eot. Dr. g. 0.) The Book of Adam 
 and Eve, also called the Conflict of 
 Adam and Eve with Satan. A Book 
 of the early Eastern Church. Trans- 
 lated from the Ethiopic, with Notes 
 from the Kufale, Talmud, Midrashim, 
 and other Eastern works. 8vo, cloth. 
 
 7s. U. 
 
 [assey (&erald) A Book of the Beginnings. 
 Containing an Attempt to recover and 
 reconstitute the lost Origines of the 
 Myths and Mysteries, Types and Sym- 
 hols, Eeligion and Language. 2 vols. 
 Imperial 8yo, cloth. 30s. 
 
 — The ITatural Genesis. 2 vols. Imp. 
 8vo, cloth. 30s. 
 
 letaphysica Nova et Vetusta : a Eeturn 
 to Dualism. By Scotus Novanticus. 
 200 pp. 8vo, cloth. 6s. 
 
 lilinda Panho, the. Being Dialogues 
 , between King Milinda and the Bud- 
 dhist Sage Nagasena. The Pali Text, 
 editedhy V. Trenckner. 8vo. 21s. 
 vide also Pali Miscellany. 
 
 lind, a Quarterly Eeview of Psychology 
 and Philosophy. Nos.l— 40. 1876-85. 
 8vo, each 3s. Annual Subscription, 
 
 \ post free, 12s. 
 
 Hiiller (Professor Max) Lectures on the 
 ■ Origin and Growth of Religion, as 
 
 illustrated by the Eeligions of India. 
 
 (Hibbert Lectures, 1878.) 8vo, cloth. 
 i 10s. &d. 
 
 pelungenlied, The Fall of the Nibel- 
 
 ungers, otherwise the Book of Kriem- 
 I hild. An English Translation by W. 
 
 N. Lettsom. Crown 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d 
 
 ficolson (Eev. W. M.) Classical Eevision 
 of the Greek New Testament. Tested 
 I andappliedon uniform Principles, with 
 1 suggested Alterations of the English 
 f Version. Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d 
 
 forris (E . ) Assyrian Dictionary. Intended 
 to further the Study of the Cuneiform 
 I Inscriptions of Assyria and Babylonia. 
 I Vols. L to IIL 4to, cloth. Each 28s. 
 lOnrry (Bug.) Lectures on the Social 
 \ Life, Manners and Civilization of the 
 
 People of Ancient Erinn. Edited, with 
 an Introduction, by D r. W. K Sullivan. 
 Numerous Wood Engravings of Arms, 
 Ornaments, &c. 3 vols. 8vo. 42s. 
 
 Oldenberg (Prof. H.) Buddha, his Life, his 
 Doctrine, and his Order. Translated 
 byDr. Wm. Hoey, B.C.S. 8vo. 18s. 
 
 vide Vinaya Pitakam. 
 
 Pali Miscellany, by V. Trenckner. Part I. 
 The Introductory Part of the Milinda 
 Panho, with an English Translation 
 and Notes. 8vo. 4s. 
 
 Peill (Rev. George) The Threefold Basis of 
 Universal Eestitution. Crown 8vo, 
 cloth. 3s. 
 
 Pennethome (John) The Geometry and 
 Optics of Ancient Architecture, illus- 
 trated by Examples from Thebes, 
 Athens and Kome. Folio, with 56 
 Plates, some in colours. Half morocco. 
 
 £7. 7s. 
 
 Perrin (E, S.) The Eeligion of Philosophy j 
 or, the Unification of Knowledge. A 
 Comparison of the chief Philosophical 
 and Religious Systems of the World, 
 made with a view to reducing the 
 Categories of Thought, or the most 
 general Terms of Existence, to a single 
 Principle, thereby establishing a true 
 Conception of God. 8vo, cloth. 16s. 
 
 Pfleiderer (0.) Paulinism : a Contribution 
 to the History of Primitive Christian 
 Theology. Translated by E. Peters. 
 2 vols. 8vo. 21s. 
 
 The Teaching of the Apostle Paul 
 
 and its Influence on the Development 
 of Christianity. (Hibbert Lectures, 
 1885.) 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d 
 
 ■ Philosophy of Eeligion. Translated 
 
 by the Eev. Alexander Stewart, of 
 Dundee. Vol. I. 8vo. 10s. M. 
 
 Vol. II. shortly. 
 Platonis Philebus, with Introduction, 
 Notes and Appendix ; together with, 
 a Critical Letter on the "Laws" of 
 Plato, and a Chapter of Palceographi- 
 cal Remarks, by the Rev. Dr. Chas. 
 Badham, D.D. 2nd Edition, enlarged. 
 8vo, cloth. 4s. 
 
Williams and Norgate's 
 
 Platonis Euthydemus et Laohes, with Criti- 
 cal Notes and "Epistola critica" to the 
 Senate of the Leyden University, hy 
 the Eev. C. Badham, D.D. 8vo, cl. is. 
 
 Oonvivium (Symposium), with Cri- 
 tical Notes and an Epistola (de Platonis 
 Legibus) to Dr. Thompson, Master of 
 Trinity College, Cambridge, by the 
 Eev. C. Badham, D.D. 8vo, cloth. 4s. 
 
 Poole (Eeg. L.) Illustrations of the History 
 of Medieval Thought in the Depart- 
 ments of Theology and Ecclesiastical 
 Politics. 8vo, cloth. 10s. &d. 
 
 Protestant Commentary, A Short, on the 
 Books of the New Testament : with 
 general and special Introductions. 
 Edited by Professors P. W. Schmidt 
 and F. von Holzendorff. Translated 
 from the Third German Edition, by 
 the Eev. E. H. Jones, B.A. 3 vols. 
 Svo, cloth. Each 10«. 6d. 
 
 Quarry (Eev. J.) G-enesis and its Author- 
 ship. Two Dissertations. I'ndEdition, 
 with Notice of Animadversions of the 
 Bishop of Natal. 8vo. 1 2s. 
 
 Eehquise Aquitanioae ; being Contribu- 
 tions to the Archaeology and Palaeon- 
 tology of P(5rigord and the adjoining 
 Provinces of Southern France. By 
 Lartet and Christy. Edited by T. 
 Eupert Jones, F.E.S., F.G.S. 87 
 Plates, 3 Maps, and 130 Wood En- 
 gravings. Eoyal 4to, cloth. £3. 3s. 
 
 Eenan (E.) On the Influence of the Insti- 
 tutions, Thought and Culture of Eome 
 on Christianity and the Development 
 of the Catholic Church. (Hibbert 
 Lectures, 1880.) Svo, cloth. 10s. 6d 
 
 Eenouf (P. le Page) Lectures on the Origin 
 and Growth of Eeligion as illustrated 
 by the Eeligion of Ancient Egypt. 
 (Hibbert Lectures, 1879.) 8vo, cloth. 
 
 10s. M. 
 
 Eeville (Dr, Alb.) Prolegomena of the His- 
 tory of Eeligions. By Albert E6ville, 
 D.D., Professor in the College de 
 France, and Hibbert Lecturer. "With 
 an Introduction by Professor F. Max 
 Miiller. Svo, cloth. 10s. 6d. 
 
 Eeville (Eev. Dr. A.) On the Native Eeli- J^ 
 gions of Mexico and Peru. Translated , 
 by the Eev. P. H. Wicksteed. (Hib- *' 
 bert Lectures, 1884.) 8yo, cl. 10s. 6d '! 
 
 The Song of Songs, commonly called ,; 
 
 the Song of Solomon, or the Canticle. ', 
 Crown 8vo, cloth. 1«. 6rf. ', 
 
 Sadi. The Guhstan (Eose-Garden) of ;.; 
 Shaik Sadi of Shiraz. A new Edition .^ 
 of the Persian Text, with a Vocabu- 
 lary, by F. Johnson. Square royal ., 
 8vo, cloth. 15s. -; 
 
 Samuelson (James) Views of the Deity, .1 
 Traditional and Scientific : a Contri- 
 bution to the Study of Theological .j 
 Science. Crown Svo, cloth. 4s. 6i. -j 
 
 Savage (Eev. M. J,) Beliefs about the Bible, i 
 By the Eev. M. J. Savage, of the 
 Unity Church, Boston, Mass., Author •.'•:' 
 of "Belief in God," "Beliefs about 
 Man," &c. 8vo, cloth. 7s. U. ■'.: 
 
 Schmidt (A.) Shakespeare Lexicon. A 
 complete Dictionary of all the English -^i- 
 Words, Phrases, and Constructions in ■ ■ 
 the Works of the Poet. 2 vols. Imp. -'M 
 Svo, cloth. 34s. r; 
 
 Schrader (Prof. E.) The Cuneiform Insorip--- 
 tions and the Old Testament. Trans-- 
 lated by the Eev. 0. C. Whitehouse.-- 
 Vol. I. With a Map. Svo, cL 10s. 6d. ~ 
 Vol. II. shortly. ■2. 
 
 Sohunnan (J. 6.) Kantian Ethics and the .'- 
 Ethics of Evolution. A Critical Study./ " 
 (Published by the Hibbert Trustees.);-^ 
 8vo, cloth. 5s. '3; 
 
 Seth (A.) The Development from Kant to " 
 Hegel, with Chapters on the Philoso- ; 
 phy of Eeligion. (Pubhshed hy the,"^ 
 Hibbert Trustees.) Svo, cloth. 5s,"; 
 
 Sharpe (Samuel) History of the Hebrew.i^' 
 Nation and its Literature. With an^ : 
 Appendix on the Hebrew Chronology. ; . 
 4th Edition, 487 pp. Svo, cl. 7s. 6A-.^, 
 
 Hebrew Inscriptions from theValleys-Ft 
 
 between Egypt and Mount Sinai, m%, 
 their Original Characters, with Trans-iL;( 
 lations and an Alphahet. 2 Parts. 20:5.,,;, 
 Plates. Svo, cloth. 7s. 6d.'Stici 
 
 vide also Bible, and Testament. ^M 
 
Catalogue. 
 
 ImVa. (Eev. J, p.) Studies in EeHgion 
 under German Masters. Essays on 
 Herder, Goethe, Lessing, Frank, and 
 Lang. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. 
 
 vide Ewald's Prophets and Job. 
 
 Sophocles. The Greek Text critically 
 revised, with the aid of MSS., newly 
 collated and explained. By Eev. F. H. 
 
 ■ M. Blaydes. I. Philoctetes. II. Tra- 
 
 ■ chiniae. III. Electra. IV. Ajax. 8vo, 
 cloth. Each 6«. 
 
 Spencer (Herbert) lirst Principles. 5th 
 
 Thousand, withan Appendix. 8vo. 16s. 
 I The Principles of Biology. 2 vols. 
 
 8vo. 34s. 
 
 \ The Principles of Psychology. 4th 
 
 Thousand. 2 vols. 8vo. 36s. 
 
 The Principles of Sociology. Vol. I. 
 
 21s. 
 \ Ceremonial Institutions. (Principles 
 
 of Sociology, Vol. II. Parti.) 8vo. 7s. 
 f Political Institutions. (Principles of 
 
 Sociology, Vol. 11. Part 2.) 8vo. 12s. 
 
 — Ecclesiastical Institutions. (Princi- 
 ples of Sociology, Vol. II. Part 3.) 5s. 
 
 — The Data of Ethics. Being the 
 First Portion of the Principles of 
 Ethics. 8vo, cloth. 8s. 
 
 > The Study of Sociology. Library 
 
 Edition (being the 9th), with a Post- 
 script. 8vo, cloth. 10s. &d. 
 
 — Education! Intellectual, Moral, and 
 Physical. 8vo, cloth. 6s. 
 
 ■ The same, cheaper Edition, 4th 
 
 Thousand. 12mo, cloth. 2s. &d. 
 
 • Essays : Scientific, Political, and 
 
 Speculative. (Being the First and 
 Second Series re-arranged, and con- 
 taining an additional Essay.) 2 vols. 
 f* 4th Thousand. Svo, cloth. 16s. 
 
 ^ — Essays. (Third Series.) Including 
 - the Classification of the Sciences. 3rd 
 I Edition. Svo. 8s. 
 
 - — The Man versus the State. Paper 
 tf covers. Is. ; better paper, cloth, 2s. &d. 
 k — The Philosophy of M. Oomte— Eea- 
 1 sons for Dissenting from it. 6(f. 
 
 i* — Descriptive Sociology, or Groups 
 of Sociological Facts. Compiled and 
 abstracted by Professor D. Duncan, 
 of Madras, Dr. Eichard Sheppig, and 
 James Collier. Folio, boards, ^o. \. 
 
 English, 18s. No. 2. Ancient Ameri- 
 can Eaces, 16s. No. 3. Lowest Eaces, 
 Negri tto Eaces, Polynesians, 18s. No. 
 4. African Eaces, 16s. No. 5. Asiatic 
 Eaces, 18s. No. 6. American Eaces, 
 18s. No. 7. Hebrews and Phoenicians, 
 21s. No. 8. The French Civilization, 
 30s. 
 
 Spinoza. Pour Essays by Professors Land, 
 Van Vloten, and Kuno Fischer, and 
 by E. Eenan. Edited by Professor 
 Knight, of St. Andrews. Crown Svo, 
 clotli. 5s. 
 
 Stephens (George) Old Horthem Eunic 
 Monuments of Scandinavia and En- 
 gland, now first collected and deci- 
 phered. Numerous Engravings on 
 Wood and 15 Plates. Vols. I.— IIL 
 Folio. Each 50s. 
 
 Handbook of old ITorthem Eunic 
 
 Monuments of Scandinavia and En- 
 gland. Abridged from the larger Work, 
 retaining all the Illustrations. Eoyal 
 4to. 40s. 
 
 Thunor the Thunderer, carved on a 
 
 Scandinavian Font about the year 
 1000. 4to. 6s. 
 
 Stokes (Geo. J.) The Objectivity of Truth. 
 8vo, cloth. 5s. 
 
 Stokes (Whitley) Old Irish Glossaries. 
 Cormac's Glossary. G'Davoran's Glos- 
 sary. A Glossary to the Calendar of 
 Oingus the Cuidee. Edited, with an 
 Introduction and Index. 8vo, cloth. 
 
 10s. &d. 
 
 Middle-Breton Hours. Edited, with 
 
 a Translation and Glossary. 8vo, 
 boards. 6s. 
 
 The Creation of the World. A 
 
 Mystery in Ancient Cornish. Edited, 
 with Translations and Notes. 8vo, 
 cloth. 6s. 
 
 Strauss (Dr, D. F.) Life of Jesus for the 
 People. The Authorized English Edi- 
 tion. 2 vols. Svo, cloth. 24s. 
 
 Sullivan (W. K.) Celtic Studies, from the 
 German of Dr. Hermann Ebel, with 
 an Introduction on the Eoots, Stems 
 and Derivatives, and on Case-endings 
 of Nouns in the Indo-European Lan- 
 guages. Svo, cloth. 10*. 
 
8 
 
 Williams and ISforgate's Catalogue. 
 
 Taine (H.) English Positivism. A Study 
 of John Stuart Mill. Translated by 
 T. D. Haye. Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 
 
 Tayler (Eev. John James) An Attempt to 
 ascertain the Character of the Fourth 
 Gospel, especially in its relation to the 
 first Three. 2nd Edition. 8vo, cl. 5«. 
 
 Testament, The Hew. Translated by S. 
 Shaipe, Author of "The History of 
 Egypt," &c. 14th Thousand. Fcap. 
 8vo, cloth. Is. &d. 
 
 Thoughts (365) for Every Day in the Year. 
 Selected from the "Writings of Spiri- 
 tually-minded Persons. By the Author 
 of "Visiting my Kelations." Printed 
 •with red lines. Crown Svo, cl. 2s. %d. 
 
 Turpie (Dr, D. McO.) The Old Testament 
 in the New. The Quotations from 
 the Old Testament in the New classi- 
 fied according to their Agreement mth 
 or Variation from the Original : the 
 various Readings and Versions of the 
 Passages, Critical Notes. Eoyal Svo, 
 cloth. 12s. 
 
 Manual of the Ohaldee Language ; 
 
 containing Grammar of the Biblical 
 Chaldee and of the Targums, a Chres- 
 tomathy. Selections from the Targums, 
 with a Vocabulary. Square Svo, cl. 7s. 
 
 Vinaya Pitakam ; one of the principal 
 Buddhist Holy Scriptures. Edited in 
 
 Pali by Dr. H. Oldenberg. In 5 vols. 
 Svo. Each 21s. 
 
 Williams (Eev. Dr. Eowland) The Hebrew 
 Prophets, during the Assyrian and 
 Babylonian Empires. Translated afresh 
 from the Original, with regard to the 
 Anglican Version, with illustrations 
 for English Eeaders. 2 vols. Svo, 
 cloth. 22s. %d. 
 
 Psalms and Litanies, Counsels and 
 
 Collects, for Devout Persons. Edited 
 by his Widow. Fcap. 4to, cloth 
 extra. 12s. 6c?. 
 
 Broadchalke Sermon - Essays on 
 
 Nature, Mediation, Atonement, Abso- 
 lution, &c. Crown Svo, cloth. 7s. 6i. 
 
 Wright (G. H. B.) The Book of Job. A 
 
 new critically revised Translation, with 
 Essays on Scansion, Date, &c. By 
 G. H. Bateson Wright, M.A., Queen's 
 ColL, Oxford, Head Master of the 
 Government Central School, Hong 
 Kong. Svo, cloth. 6s. 
 
 Zeller (Dr. E.) The Contents and Origin 
 of the Acts of the Apostles critically 
 investigated. Preceded by Dr. Fr. 
 Overbeck's Introduction to the Acts 
 of the Apostles from De Wette's Hand- 
 book. Translated by Joseph Dare. 2 
 vols. Svo, cloth. 21s. 
 
 WILLIAMS & NORGATB have published the following Catalogues 
 
 of their Stock. 
 
 1. Classical Catalogue. Greek and 
 
 Latin Classics. 
 
 2. Theological Catalogue. Including 
 
 Philosophy and Metaphysics. 
 
 3. Feenoh Catalogue. General Litera- 
 
 ture, History, Travels, &c. 
 
 4. German Catalogue. General Lite- 
 
 rature. 
 
 * Map Catalogue. Foreign Maps and 
 
 Atlases. 
 
 5. Linguistic Catalogue. European 
 
 Languages. 
 
 * Italian Catalogue. 
 
 * Spanish Catalogue. 
 
 6. Oriental Catalogue. Oriental 
 
 Languages and Literature. 
 
 7. Medical Catalogue. Medicine, 
 
 Surgery, &c. 
 
 8. Natural History Catalogue. 
 
 Zoology, Botany, Geology, Palas- 
 ontology. 
 
 9. Natural Science Catalogue. 
 
 Mathematics, Astronomy, Physics^ 
 Mechanics, Chemistry, &c. 
 
 10. Art Catalogue. Architecture, 
 
 Painting, Sculpture and Engrav- 
 ing. Books illustrated by Artists. 
 
 11. School Catalogue. Elementary 
 
 Books, Maps, &c. 
 
m^