,,the ,,origin ,,of    ,,paul',s        
,,religion      ,,the ,,james ,,sprunt  
,,lectures    ,,delivered ,,at ,,union  
,,theological ,,seminary    ,,in        
,,virginia      ,,by      ,j4 ,,gresham 
,,machen1 ,d4,d4      ,assistant        
,professor of ,new ,testament           
,literature and    ,exegesis in         
,princeton ,theological ,seminary       
,new ,york    ,,the ,,macmillan         
,,company    #aiba      ,all rights     
reserved            ,,printed ,,in ,,the
 ,,united ,,states ,,of ,,america       
,copyright1 #aiba1    ,,by ,,the        
,,macmillan ,,company4      ,set up and 
printed4 ,published ,october1 #aiba4    
,press of    ,j4 ,j4 ,little  ,ives     
,company    ,new ,york1 ,u4 ,s4 ,a4     
,,to    ,,william ,,park ,,armstrong    
,,my ,,guide    ,,in ,,the ,,study ,,of 
,,the ,,new ,,testament    ,,and ,,in   
,,all ,,good ,,things          ,,the    
,,james ,,sprunt ,,lectures      ,in    
#aiaa ,mr4 ,james ,sprunt of            
,wilmington1 ,north ,carolina1 gave to  

,the ,trustees of ,union ,theological   
,seminary in ,virginia the sum  of      
thirty thousand dollars1 since increased
 by his generosity to  fifty thousand   
dollars1 for the purpose of establishing
 a perpetual  lectureship1 which would  
enable the institution to secure from   
time  to time the services of           
distinguished ministers and             
authoritative  scholars1 outside the    
regular ,faculty1 as special lecturers  
on  subjects connected with various     
departments of ,christian thought  and  
,christian work4 ,the lecturers are     
chosen by the ,faculty of the  ,seminary
 and a committee of the ,board of       
,trustees1 and the lectures  are        
published after their delivery in       
accordance with a contract  between the 
lecturer and these representatives of   
the institution4  ,the ninth series of  
lectures on this foundation is presented
 in this  volume4    ,w4 ,w4 ,,moore1   
,president4          ,,table ,,of       
,,contents        ,,chapter             

,,page      ,i4 ,,introduction          
#c      ,,ii4 ,,the ,,early ,,years     
#dc      ,,iii4 ,,the ,,triumph ,,of    
,,gentile ,,freedom                 #ga 
,,iv4 ,,paul ,,and ,,jesus              
#aag      ,v4 ,,the ,,jewish            
,,environment                           
#agc      ,,vi4 ,,the ,,religion ,,of   
,,the ,,hellenistic ,,age               
#baa      ,,vii4 ,,redemption ,,in      
,,pagan ,,religion ,,and ,,in ,,paul    
#bee      ,,viii4 ,,the ,,lordship ,,of 
,,jesus                        #bic     
,,index                                 
#cai          ,,chapter ,i              
,,introduction          ,,the ,,origin  
,,of ,,paul',s ,,religion               
,,chapter ,i    ,,introduction      ,the
 following discussion is intended to    
deal1 from one particular  point of     
view1 with the problem of the origin of 
,christianity4 ,that  problem is an     
important historical problem1 and also  
an important  practical problem4 ,it is 
an important historical problem not     

only because of the large place which   
,christianity has occupied  in the      
medieval and modern world1 but also     
because of certain  unique features     
which even the most unsympathetic and   
superficial  examination must detect in 
the beginnings of the ,christian        
movement4  ,the problem of the origin of
 ,christianity is also an important     
practical problem4 ,rightly or wrongly1 
,christian experience has  ordinarily   
been connected with one particular view 
of the origin  of the ,christian        
movement2 where that view has been      
abandoned1 the  experience has ceased4  
,this dependence of ,christianity upon a
 particular conception of  its origin   
and of its ,founder is now indeed being 
made the object  of vigorous attack4    
,there are many who maintain that       
,christianity  is the same no matter    
what its origin was1 and that therefore 
the problem of origin should be kept    
entirely separate from the  present     
religious interests of the ,church4     

,obviously1 however1 this  indifference 
to the question as to what the origin of
 ,christianity  was depends upon a      
particular conception of what           
,christianity now  is2 it depends upon  
the conception which makes of           
,christianity  simply a manner of life4 
,that conception is indeed widespread1  
but it is by no means universal2 there  
are still hosts of earnest  ,christians 
who regard ,christianity1 not simply as 
a manner of life1  but as a manner of   
life founded upon a message--upon a     
message with  regard to the ,founder of 
the ,christian movement4 ,for such      
persons  the question of the origin of  
,christianity is rather to be called    
the question of the truth of            
,christianity1 and that question is to  
them the most important practical       
question of their lives4 ,even if  these
 persons are wrong1 the refutation of   
their supposed error  naturally         
proceeds1 and has in recent years almost
 always proceeded1  primarily by means  

of that very discussion of the origin of
 the  ,christian movement which is      
finally to be shorn of its practical    
interest4 ,the most important practical 
question for the modern  ,church is     
still the question how ,christianity    
came into being4    ,in recent years it 
has become customary to base discussions
 of  the origin of ,christianity upon   
the apostle ,paul4 ,jesus ,himself1  the
 author of the ,christian movement1     
wrote nothing--at least  no writings of 
,his have been preserved4 ,the record of
 ,his words  and deeds is the work of   
others1 and the date and authorship and 
historical value of the documents in    
which that record is contained  are the 
subject of persistent debate4 ,with     
regard to the genuineness  of the       
principal epistles of ,paul1 on the     
other hand1 and with  regard to the     
value of at least part of the outline of
 his life  which is contained in the    
,book of ,acts1 all serious historians  
are agreed4 ,the testimony of ,paul1    

therefore1 forms a fixed  starting-point
 in all controversy4    ,obviously that 
testimony has an important bearing upon 
the question  of the origin of          
,christianity4 ,paul was a contemporary 
of ,jesus4 ,he  attached himself to     
,jesus' disciples only a very few years 
after  ,jesus' death2 according to his  
own words1 in one of the universally    
accepted epistles1 he came into early   
contact with the leader among  ,jesus'  
associates2 throughout his life he was  
deeply interested 7for  one reason or   
another7 in the affairs of the primitive
 ,jerusalem  ,church2 both before his   
conversion and after it he must have had
  abundant opportunity for acquainting  
himself with the facts about  ,jesus'   
life and death4 ,his testimony is not1  
however1 limited to  what he says in    
detail about the words and deeds of the 
,founder of  the ,christian movement4   
,more important still is the testimony  
of  his experience as a whole4 ,the     
religion of ,paul is a fact which       

stands in the full light of history4    
,how is it to be explained8 ,what  were 
its presuppositions8 ,upon what sort of 
,jesus was it founded8  ,these questions
 lead into the very heart of the        
historical problem4  ,explain the origin
 of the religion of ,paul1 and you have 
solved the  problem of the origin of    
,christianity4    ,that problem may thus
 be approached through the gateway of   
the  testimony of ,paul4 ,but that is   
not the only way to approach it4        
,another way is offered by the ,gospel  
picture of the person of  ,jesus4 ,quite
 independent of questions of date and   
authorship and  literary relationships  
of the documents1 the total picture     
which  the ,gospels present bears       
unmistakable marks of being the picture 
of a real historical person4 ,internal  
evidence here reaches the  point of     
certainty4 ,if the ,jesus who in the    
,gospels is represented  as rebuking the
 ,pharisees and as speaking the parables
 is not a  real historical person living

 at a definite point in the world's     
history1 then there is no way of        
distinguishing history from  fiction4   
,even the evidence for the genuineness  
of the ,pauline  ,epistles is no        
stronger than this4 ,but if the ,jesus  
of the ,gospels  is a real person1      
certain puzzling questions arise4 ,the  
,jesus of the  ,gospels is a            
supernatural person2 ,he is represented 
as possessing  sovereign power over the 
forces of nature4 ,what shall be done   
with  this supernatural element in the  
picture8 ,it is certainly very          
difficult to separate it from the rest4 
,moreover the ,jesus of the  ,gospels is
 represented as advancing some lofty    
claims4 ,he regarded  ,himself as being 
destined to come with the clouds of     
heaven and be  the instrument in judging
 the world4 ,what shall be done with    
this  element in ,his consciousness8    
,how does it agree with the indelible   
impression of calmness and sanity which 
has always been made by ,his  character8

 ,these questions again lead into the   
heart of the problem4  ,yet they cannot 
be ignored4 ,they are presented         
inevitably by what  every serious       
historian admits4    ,the fundamental   
evidence with regard to the origin of   
,christianity  is therefore twofold4    
,two facts need to be explained--the    
,jesus  of the ,gospels and the religion
 of ,paul4 ,the problem of early        
,christianity may be approached in      
either of these two ways4 ,it  should   
finally be approached in both ways4 ,and
 if it is approached  in both ways the  
investigator will discover1 to his      
amazement1 that  the two ways lead to   
the same result4 ,but the present       
discussion is  more limited in scope4   
,it seeks to deal merely with one of the
 two  ways of approach to the problem of
 ,christianity4 ,what was the origin  of
 the religion of ,paul8    ,in          
discussing the apostle ,paul the        
historian is dealing with a  subject    
important for its own sake1 even aside  

from the importance  of what it         
presupposes about ,jesus4               
,unquestionably ,paul was a  notable    
man1 whose influence has been felt      
throughout all subsequent  history4 ,the
 fact itself cannot be called in        
question4 ,but since  there is wide     
difference of opinion about details1 it 
may be well1  in a brief preliminary    
word1 to define a little more closely   
the  nature and extent of the influence 
of ,paul4    ,that influence has been   
exerted in two ways4 ,it was exerted1 in
 the  first place1 during the lifetime  
of ,paul2 and it has been exerted1  in  
the second place1 upon subsequent       
generations through the medium  of the  
,pauline ,epistles4    ,with regard to  
the second kind of influence1 general   
considerations  would make a high       
estimate natural4 ,the ,pauline         
,epistles form a  large proportion of   
the ,new ,testament1 which has been     
regarded as  fundamental and            
authoritative in all ages of the        

,church4 ,the use of  the ,pauline      
,epistles as normative for ,christian   
thought and practice  can be traced back
 to very early times1 and has been      
continuous  ever since4 ,yet certain    
considerations have been urged on the   
other  side as indicating that the      
influence of ,paul has not been so great
  as might have been expected4 ,for     
example1 the ,christianity of the  ,old 
,catholic ,church at the close of the   
second century displays a  strange lack 
of understanding for the deeper elements
 in the ,pauline  doctrine of salvation1
 and something of the same state of     
affairs  may be detected in the scanty  
remains of the so-called ,apostolic     
,fathers of the beginning of the        
century4 ,the divergence from ,paul  was
 not conscious2 the writers of the close
 of the second century  all quote the   
,pauline ,epistles with the utmost      
reverence4 ,but the  fact of the        
divergence cannot altogether be denied4 
,various explanations of this divergence

 have been proposed4 ,baur  explained   
the un-,pauline character of the ,old   
,catholic ,church as  due to a          
compromise with a legalistic ,jewish    
,christianity2 ,ritschl  explained it as
 due to a natural process of            
degeneration on purely  ,gentile        
,christian ground2 ,von ,harnack        
explains it as due to the  intrusion1   
after the time of ,paul1 of ,greek      
habits of thought4  ,the devout         
believer1 on the other hand1 might      
simply say that the  ,pauline doctrine  
of grace was too wonderful and too      
divine to be  understood fully by the   
human mind and heart4#a      #a ,compare
 ,jesus and ,paul1 in ,biblical and     
,theological ,studies    by ,members of 
the ,faculty of ,princeton ,theological 
,seminary1 #aiab1    pp4 #eec f4        
,whatever the explanation1 however1 the 
fact1 even after  exaggerations have    
been avoided1 remains significant4 ,it  
remains  true that the ,church of the   
second century failed to understand     

fully the ,pauline doctrine of the way  
of salvation4 ,the same lack  of        
understanding has been observable only  
too frequently throughout  subsequent   
generations4 ,it was therefore with some
 plausibility that  ,von ,harnack       
advanced his dictum to the effect that  
,paulinism has  established itself as a 
ferment1 but never as a foundation1 in  
the  history of doctrine4#b      #b     
,harnack1 ,lehrbuch der                 
,dogmengeschichte1 #dte ,aufl41 i1      
#aiji1 p4    #aee4 7,english            
,translation1 ,history of ,dogma1 i1    
#ahie1 p4 #acf47    ,in the first place1
 however1 it may be doubted whether the 
dictum  of ,von ,harnack is true2 for in
 that line of development of theology   
which runs from ,augustine through the  
,reformation to the ,reformed           
,churches1 ,paulinism may fairly be     
regarded as a true foundation4 ,but  in 
the second place1 even if ,von          
,harnack's dictum were true1 the        
importance of ,paul's influence would   

not be destroyed4 ,a ferment is         
sometimes as important as a foundation4 
,as ,von ,harnack himself says1  the    
,pauline reactions mark the critical    
epochs of theology and of  the          
,church4444 ,the history of doctrine    
could be written as a history  of the   
,pauline reactions in the ,church4#c ,as
 a matter of fact  the influence of     
,paul upon the entire life of the       
,church is simply  measureless4 ,who can
 measure the influence of the eighth    
chapter of  ,romans8      #c ,harnack1  
loc4 cit4    ,the influence of ,paul was
 also exerted1 however1 in his own      
lifetime1 by his spoken words as well as
 by his letters4 ,to estimate  the full 
extent of that influence one would have 
to write the entire  history of early   
,christianity4 ,it may be well1 however1
 to consider  briefly at least one      
outstanding aspect of that influence--an
 aspect  which must appeal even to the  
most unsympathetic observer4 ,the       
,christian movement began in the midst  

of a very peculiar people2 in  #ce      
,a4,d4 it would have appeared to a      
superficial observer to be a  ,jewish   
sect4 ,thirty years later it was plainly
 a world religion4  ,true1 the number of
 its adherents was still small4 ,but the
 really  important steps had been taken4
 ,the conquest of the world was now a   
mere matter of time4 ,this establishment
 of ,christianity as a world  religion1 
to almost as great an extent as any     
great historical  movement can be       
ascribed to one man1 was the work of    
,paul4    ,this assertion needs to be   
defended against various objections1 and
  at the same time freed from           
misinterpretations and exaggerations4   
,in the first place1 it might be said1  
the ,gentile mission of ,paul  was      
really only a part of a mighty          
historical process--the march of  the   
oriental religions throughout the       
western world4 ,christianity  was not   
the only religion which was filling the 
void left by the  decay of the native   

religions of ,greece and ,rome4 ,the    
,phrygian  religion of ,cybele had been 
established officially at ,rome since   
#bjd  ,b4,c41 and after leading a       
somewhat secluded and confined existence
  for several centuries1 was at the time
 of ,paul beginning to make  its        
influence felt in the life of the       
capital4 ,the ,greco-,egyptian  religion
 of ,isis was preparing for the         
triumphal march which it  began in      
earnest in the second century4 ,the     
,persian religion of  ,mithras was      
destined to share with ,isis the        
possession of a large  part of the      
,greco-,roman world4 ,was not the       
,christianity of ,paul  merely one      
division of a mighty army which would   
have conquered even  without his help8  
,with regard to this objection a number 
of things may be said4 ,in  the first   
place1 the apostle ,paul1 as over       
against the priests of  ,isis and of    
,cybele1 has perhaps at least the merit 
of priority2 the  really serious attempt

 at world-conquest was made by those    
religions  7and still more clearly by   
the religion of ,mithras7 only after the
  time of ,paul4 ,in the second place1  
the question may well be asked  whether 
it is at all justifiable to class the   
,christianity of ,paul  along with those
 other cults under the head of          
,hellenized oriental  religion4 ,this   
question will form the subject of a     
considerable  part of the discussion    
which follows1 and it will be answered  
with  an emphatic negative4 ,the        
,christianity of ,paul will be found to 
be totally different from the oriental  
religions4 ,the threat of  conquest made
 by those religions1 therefore1 only    
places in sharper  relief the           
achievement of ,paul1 by showing the    
calamities from  which the world was    
saved by his energetic mission4 ,if     
except for  the ,pauline mission the    
world would have become devoted to ,isis
 or  ,mithras1 then ,paul was certainly 
one of the supreme benefactors of  the  

human race4    ,even apart from any     
detailed investigation1 however1 one    
difference  between the religion of     
,paul and the oriental religions is     
perfectly  obvious4 ,the oriental       
religions were tolerant of other faiths2
 the  religion of ,paul1 like the       
ancient religion of ,israel1 demanded an
  absolutely exclusive devotion4 ,a man 
could become initiated into the         
mysteries of ,isis or ,mithras without  
at all giving up his former  beliefs2   
but if he were to be received into the  
,church1 according  to the preaching of 
,paul1 he must forsake all other        
,saviours for  the ,lord ,jesus ,christ4
 ,the difference places the achievement 
of  ,paul upon an entirely different    
plane from the successes of the         
oriental mystery religions4 ,it was one 
thing to offer a new faith  and a new   
cult as simply one additional way of    
obtaining contact  with the ,divine1 and
 it was another thing1 and a far more   
difficult  thing 7and in the ancient    

world outside of ,israel an unheard-of  
thing71 to require a man to renounce all
 existing religious beliefs  and        
practices in order to place his whole   
reliance upon a single  ,saviour4 ,amid 
the prevailing syncretism of the        
,greco-,roman world1  the religion of   
,paul1 with the religion of ,israel1    
stands absolutely  alone4 ,the successes
 of the oriental religions1 therefore1  
only  place in clearer light the        
uniqueness of the achievement of ,paul4 
,they do indeed indicate the need and   
longing of the ancient world  for       
redemption2 but that is only part of the
 preparation for the  coming of the     
gospel which has always been celebrated 
by devout  ,christians as part of the   
divine economy1 as one indication that  
the fullness of the time was come4 ,but 
the wide prevalence of the  need does   
not at all detract from the achievement 
of satisfying the  need4 ,paul's way of 
satisfying the need1 as it is hoped the 
later  chapters will show1 was unique2  

but what should now be noticed is  that 
the way of ,paul1 because of its        
exclusiveness1 was at least far  more   
difficult than that of any of his rivals
 or successors4 ,his  achievement was   
therefore immeasurably greater than     
theirs4    ,but if the successes of the 
oriental religions do not detract from  
the achievement of ,paul1 what shall be 
said of the successes of  pre-,christian
 ,judaism8 ,it must always be remembered
 that ,judaism1  in the first century1  
was an active missionary religion4 ,even
  ,palestinian ,judaism was imbued with 
the missionary spirit2 ,jesus  said to  
the ,pharisees that they compassed sea  
and land to make one  proselyte4 ,the   
,judaism of the ,dispersion was no doubt
 even more  zealous for winning         
adherents4 ,the numberless synagogues   
scattered  throughout the cities of the 
,greco-,roman world were not attended1  
as ,jewish synagogues are attended      
to-day1 only by ,jews1 but were  also   
filled with hosts of ,gentiles1 some of 

whom had accepted  circumcision and     
become full ,jews1 but others of whom1  
forming the  class called in the ,book  
of ,acts ,god-fearers or                
,god-worshipers1  had accepted the      
monotheism of the ,jews and the lofty   
morality of  the ,old ,testament without
 definitely uniting themselves with the 
people of ,israel4 ,in addition to this 
propaganda in the synagogues1  an       
elaborate literary propaganda1 of which 
important remnants have  been preserved1
 helped to carry on the missionary work4
 ,the question  therefore arises whether
 the preaching of ,paul was anything    
more  than a continuation1 though in any
 case a noteworthy continuation1  of    
this pre-,christian ,jewish mission4    
,here again1 as in the case of the      
longing for redemption which is         
attested by the successes of the        
oriental religions1 an important        
element in the preparation for the      
gospel must certainly be  detected4 ,it 
is hard to exaggerate the service which 

was rendered  to the ,pauline mission by
 the ,jewish synagogue4 ,one of the most
  important problems for every          
missionary is the problem of gaining a  
hearing4 ,the problem may be solved in  
various ways4 ,sometimes the  missionary
 may hire a place of meeting and        
advertise2 sometimes  he may talk on the
 street corners to passers-by4 ,but for 
,paul  the problem was solved4 ,all that
 he needed to do was to enter  the      
synagogue and exercise the privilege of 
speaking1 which was  accorded with      
remarkable liberality to visiting       
teachers4 ,in the  synagogue1 moreover1 
,paul found an audience not only of     
,jews but  also of ,gentiles2 everywhere
 the ,god-fearers were to be found4     
,these ,gentile attendants upon the     
synagogues formed not only an  audience 
but a picked audience2 they were just   
the class of persons  who were most     
likely to be won by the gospel          
preaching4 ,in their  case much of the  
preliminary work had been accomplished2 

they were  already acquainted with the  
doctrine of the one true ,god2 they had 
already1 through the lofty ethical      
teaching of the ,old ,testament1  come  
to connect religion with morality in a  
way which is to us  matter-of-course but
 was very exceptional in the ancient    
world4  ,where1 as in the market-place  
at ,athens1 ,paul had to begin at the   
very beginning1 without presupposing    
this previous instruction on  the part  
of his hearers1 his task was rendered   
far more difficult4    ,undoubtedly1 in 
the case of many of his converts he did 
have to  begin in that way2 the ,first  
,epistle to the ,thessalonians1 for     
example1 presupposes1 perhaps1 converts 
who turned directly from  idols to serve
 the living and true ,god4 ,but even in 
such cases the  ,god-fearers formed a   
nucleus2 their manifold social          
relationships  provided points of       
contact with the rest of the ,gentile   
population4  ,the debt which the        
,christian ,church owes to the ,jewish  

synagogue is  simply measureless4       
,this acknowledgment1 however1 does not 
mean that the ,pauline mission  was only
 a continuation of the pre-,christian   
missionary activity  of the ,jews4 ,on  
the contrary1 the very earnestness of   
the effort  made by the ,jews to convert
 their ,gentile neighbors serves to     
demonstrate all the more clearly the    
hopelessness of their task4  ,one thing 
that was fundamental in the religion of 
the ,jews was its  exclusiveness4 ,the  
people of ,israel1 according to the ,old
 ,testament1  was the chosen people of  
,god2 the notion of a covenant between  
,god and ,his chosen people was         
absolutely central in all ages of  the  
,jewish ,church4 ,the ,old ,testament   
did indeed clearly provide a  method by 
which strangers could be received into  
the covenant2 they  could be received   
whenever1 by becoming circumcised and   
undertaking  the observance of the      
,mosaic ,law1 they should relinquish    
their  own nationality and become part  

of the nation of ,israel4 ,but this     
method seemed hopelessly burdensome4    
,even before the time of ,paul  it had  
become evident that the ,gentile world  
as a whole would never  submit to such  
terms4 ,the terms were therefore        
sometimes relaxed4  ,covenant privileges
 were offered by individual ,jewish     
teachers to  individual ,gentiles       
without requiring what was most         
offensive1 like  circumcision2 merit was
 sought by some of the ,gentiles by     
observance  of only certain parts of the
 ,law1 such as the requirements about   
the  ,sabbath or the provisions about   
food4 ,apparently widespread also  was  
the attitude of those persons who seem  
to have accepted what  may be called the
 spiritual1 as distinguished from the   
ceremonial1  aspects of ,judaism4 ,but  
all such compromises were affected by a 
deadly weakness4 ,the strict            
requirements of the ,law were set forth 
plainly in the ,old ,testament4 ,to cast
 them aside1 in the interests  of       

missionary activity1 meant a sacrifice  
of principle to practice2  it meant a   
sacrifice of the zeal and the good      
conscience of the  missionaries and of  
the true satisfaction of the converts4  
,one of  the chief attractions of       
,judaism to the world of that day was   
the  possession of an ancient and       
authoritative ,book2 the world was      
eagerly searching for authority in      
religion4 ,yet if the privileges  of the
 ,old ,testament were to be secured1 the
 authority of the ,book  had to be set  
aside4 ,the character of a national     
religion was  therefore too indelibly   
stamped upon the religion of ,israel2   
the  ,gentile converts could at best    
only be admitted into an outer circle   
around the true household of ,god4 ,what
 pre-,christian ,judaism had to  offer  
was therefore obviously insufficient4   
,perhaps the tide of the  ,jewish       
mission had already begun to ebb before 
the time of ,paul2  perhaps the process 
of the withdrawal of ,judaism into its  

age-long  seclusion had already begun4  
,undoubtedly that process was hastened  
by the rivalry of ,christianity1 which  
offered far more than ,judaism  had     
offered and offered it on far more      
acceptable terms4 ,but the  process     
sooner or later would inevitably have   
made itself felt4  ,whether or not      
,renan was correct in supposing that had
 it not been  for ,christianity the     
world would have been ,mithraic1 one    
thing is  certain--the world apart from 
,christianity would never have become   
,jewish4    ,but was not the preaching  
of ,paul itself one manifestation of    
that  liberalizing tendency among the   
,jews to which allusion has just been   
made and of which the powerlessness has 
just been asserted8 ,was not  the       
attitude of ,paul in remitting the      
requirement of circumcision1  while he  
retained the moral and spiritual part of
 the ,old ,testament  ,law--especially  
if1 as the ,book of ,acts asserts1 he   
assented upon  occasion to the          

imposition of certain of the less       
burdensome  parts even of the ceremonial
 ,law--very similar to the action of a  
teacher like that ,ananias who was      
willing to receive king ,izates of      
,adiabene without requiring him to be   
circumcised8 ,these questions  in recent
 years have occasionally been answered  
in the affirmative1  especially by      
,kirsopp ,lake4#d ,but despite the      
plausibility of  ,lake's representation 
he has thereby introduced a root error  
into  his reconstruction of the         
apostolic age4 ,for whatever the        
teaching  of ,paul was1 it certainly was
 not liberalism4 ,the background of     
,paul is not to be sought in liberal    
,judaism1 but in the strictest  sect of 
the ,pharisees4 ,and ,paul's remission  
of the requirement of  circumcision was 
similar only in form1 at the most1 to   
the action of  the ,ananias who has just
 been mentioned4 ,in motive and in      
principle  it was diametrically         
opposite4 ,gentile freedom according to 

,paul  was not something permitted2 it  
was something absolutely required4  ,and
 it was required just by the strictest  
interpretation of the  ,old ,testament  
,law4 ,if ,paul had been a liberal ,jew1
 he would never  have been the apostle  
to the ,gentiles2 for he would never    
have  developed his doctrine of the     
,cross4 ,gentile freedom1 in other      
words1 was not1 according to ,paul1 a   
relaxing of strict requirements  in the 
interests of practical missionary work2 
it was a matter of  principle4 ,for the 
first time the religion of ,israel could
 go forth  7or rather was compelled to  
go forth7 with a really good conscience 
to the spiritual conquest of the world4 
#d ,the ,earlier ,epistles of ,st4      
,paul1 #aiaa1 pp4 #af-bh1 especially    
p4 #bd4 ,compare ,lake and ,jackson1    
,the ,beginnings of ,christianity1      
,part ,i1 vol4 i1 #aibj1 p4 #aff4       
,thus the ,pauline mission was not      
merely one manifestation of the         
progress of oriental religion1 and it   

was not merely a continuation  of the   
pre-,christian mission of the ,jews2 it 
was something new4 ,but  if it was new  
in comparison with what was outside of  
,christianity1  was it not anticipated  
within ,christianity itself8 ,was it not
  anticipated by the ,founder of        
,christianity1 by ,jesus ,himself8      
,at this point careful definition is    
necessary4 ,if all that is meant  is    
that the ,gentile mission of ,paul was  
founded altogether upon  ,jesus1 then   
there ought to be no dispute4 ,a        
different view1 which  makes ,paul      
rather than ,jesus the true founder of  
,christianity1 will  be combated in the 
following pages4 ,paul himself1 at any  
rate1 bases  his doctrine of ,gentile   
freedom altogether upon ,jesus4 ,but he 
bases  it upon what ,jesus had done1 not
 upon what ,jesus1 at least during  ,his
 earthly life1 had said4 ,the true state
 of the case may therefore  be that     
,jesus by ,his redeeming work really    
made possible the ,gentile  mission1 but

 that the discovery of the true         
significance of that  work was left to  
,paul4 ,the achievement of ,paul1       
whether it be  regarded as a discovery  
made by him or a divine revelation made 
to  him1 would thus remain intact4 ,what
 did ,jesus say or imply1 during  ,his  
earthly ministry1 about the universalism
 of the gospel8 ,did ,he  make          
superfluous the teaching of ,paul8      
,the latter question must be answered in
 the negative2 attempts at  finding1    
clearly expressed1 in the words of      
,jesus the full doctrine  of ,gentile   
freedom have failed4 ,it is often said  
that ,jesus1 though  ,he addressed ,his 
teaching to ,jews1 addressed it to them 
not as ,jews  but as men4 ,but the      
discovery of that fact 7whenever it was 
made7  was no mean achievement4         
,certainly it was not made by the modern
  writers who lightly repeat the        
assertion1 for they have the benefit  of
 the teaching of ,paul and of nineteen  
centuries of ,christian  experience     

based upon that teaching4 ,even if      
,jesus did address not  the ,jew as a   
,jew1 but the man in the ,jew1 the      
achievement of ,paul  in the            
establishment of the ,gentile ,church   
was not thereby made a  matter of       
course4 ,the plain man would be more    
likely to stick at  the fact that       
however ,jesus addressed the ,jew ,he   
did address the  ,jew and not the       
,gentile1 and ,he commanded ,his        
disciples to do the  same4 ,instances in
 which ,he extended ,his ministry to    
,gentiles are  expressly designated in  
the ,gospels as exceptional4    ,but did
 ,he not definitely command ,his        
disciples to engage in the  ,gentile    
work after ,his departure8 ,certainly   
,he did not do so  according to the     
modern critical view of the ,gospels4   
,but even if  the great commission of   
,matt4 xxviii4 #ai1 #bj be accepted as  
an  utterance of ,jesus1 it is by no    
means clear that the question of        
,gentile liberty was settled4 ,in the   

great commission1 the apostles  are     
commanded to make disciples of all the  
nations4 ,but on what  terms were the   
new disciples to be received8 ,there was
 nothing  startling1 from the ,jewish   
point of view1 in winning ,gentile      
converts2 the non-,christian ,jews1 as  
has just been observed1 were  busily    
engaged in doing that4 ,the only        
difficulty arose when the  terms of     
reception of the new converts were      
changed4 ,were the  new converts to be  
received as disciples of ,jesus without 
being  circumcised and thus without     
becoming members of the covenant people 
of ,god8 ,the great commission does not 
answer that question4 ,it does  indeed  
mention only baptism and not            
circumcision4 ,but might that  not be   
because circumcision1 for those who were
 to enter into ,god's  people1 was a    
matter of course8    ,in a number of    
,his utterances1 it is true1 ,jesus did 
adopt  an attitude toward the ceremonial
 ,law1 at least toward the              

interpretation of it by the scribes1    
very different from what was  customary 
in the ,judaism of ,his day4 ,there is  
nothing from without  the man1 ,he said1
 that entering into him can defile him3 
but the  things which come out of him1  
those are they that defile the man      
7,mark vii4 #ae74 ,no doubt these words 
were revolutionary in their  ultimate   
implications4 ,but there is no evidence 
that they resulted  in revolutionary    
practice on the part of ,jesus4 ,on the 
contrary1  there is definite reason to  
suppose that ,he observed the ceremonial
  ,law as it was contained in the ,old  
,testament1 and definite  utterances of 
,his in support of the authority of the 
,law have been  preserved in the        
,gospels4    ,the disciples1 therefore1 
were not obviously unfaithful to the    
teachings of ,jesus if after ,he had    
been taken from them they  continued to 
minister only to the lost sheep of the  
house of ,israel4  ,if ,he had told them
 to make disciples of all the nations1  

,he had  not told them upon what terms  
the disciples were to be received or  at
 what moment of time the specifically   
,gentile work should begin4  ,perhaps   
the divine economy required that ,israel
 should first be  brought to an         
acknowledgment of her ,lord1 or at least
 her obduracy  established beyond       
peradventure1 in accordance with the    
mysterious  prophecy of ,jesus in the   
parable of the ,wicked ,husbandmen1#e   
before  the ,gentiles should be gathered
 in4 ,at any rate1 there is evidence    
that whatever was revolutionary in the  
life and teaching of ,jesus  was less   
evident among ,his disciples1 in the    
early days of the  ,jerusalem ,church4  
,even the ,pharisees1 and at any rate   
the people  as a whole1 could find      
nothing to object to in the attitude of 
the  apostles and their followers4 ,the 
disciples continued to observe  the     
,jewish fasts and feasts4 ,outwardly    
they were simply loyal ,jews4           
,evidently ,gentile freedom1 and the    

abolition of special ,jewish            
privileges1 had not been clearly        
established by the words of the         
,master4 ,there was therefore still need
 for the epoch-making work of  ,paul4   
#e ,matt4 xxi4 #da1 and parallels4 ,this
 verse can perhaps hardly be    held to 
refer exclusively to the rejection of   
,jesus by the rulers2    it seems also  
to apply to a rejection by the people as
 a whole4 ,but    the full implications 
of so mysterious an utterance may well  
have    been lost sight of in the early 
,jerusalem ,church4    ,but if the      
achievement of ,paul was not clearly    
anticipated in the  teaching of ,jesus  
,himself1 was it not anticipated or at  
any rate  shared by others in the       
,church8 ,according to the ,book of     
,acts1  a ,gentile1 ,cornelius1 and his 
household were baptized1 without        
requirement of circumcision1 by ,peter  
himself1 the leader of the  original    
apostles2 and a free attitude toward the
 ,temple and the  ,law was adopted by   

,stephen4 ,the latter instance1 at      
least1 has  ordinarily been accepted as 
historical by modern criticism4 ,even   
in founding the churches which are      
usually designated as ,pauline1         
moreover1 ,barnabas and ,silas and      
others had an important part2 and  in   
the founding of many churches ,paul     
himself was not concerned4  ,it is an   
interesting fact that of the churches in
 the three most  important cities of the
 ,roman ,empire not one was founded by  
,paul4  ,the ,church at ,alexandria does
 not appear upon the pages of the ,new  
,testament2 the ,church at ,rome appears
 fully formed when ,paul was  only      
preparing for his coming by the ,epistle
 to the ,romans2 the  ,church at        
,antioch1 at least in its ,gentile form1
 was founded by  certain unnamed ,jews  
of ,cyprus and ,cyrene4 ,evidently1     
therefore1  ,paul was not the only      
missionary who carried the gospel to the
  ,gentile world4 ,if the ,gentile work 
consisted merely in the  geographical   

extension of the frontiers of the       
,church1 then ,paul did  not by any     
means stand alone4    ,even in the      
geographical sphere1 however1 his       
achievements must  not be               
underestimated2 even in that sphere he  
labored far more  abundantly than any   
other one man4 ,his desire to plant the 
gospel  in places where it had never    
been heard led him into an adventurous  
life which may well excite the          
astonishment of the modern man4 ,the    
catalogue of hardships which ,paul      
himself gives incidentally in the       
,second ,epistle to the ,corinthians    
shows that the ,book of ,acts has  been 
very conservative in its account of the 
hardships and perils  which the apostle 
endured2 evidently the half has not been
 told4  ,the results1 moreover1 were    
commensurate with the hardships that    
they cost4 ,despite the labors of       
others1 it was ,paul who planted the    
gospel in a real chain of the great     
cities2 it was he who conceived  most   

clearly the thought of a mighty ,church 
universal which should  embrace both    
,jew and ,gentile1 barbarian1 ,scythian1
 bond and free  in a common faith and a 
common life4 ,when he addressed himself 
to  the ,church at ,rome1 in a tone of  
authority1 as the apostle to the        
,gentiles who was ready to preach the   
gospel to those who were at  ,rome also1
 his lofty claim was supported1 despite 
the fact that  the ,church at ,rome had 
itself been founded by others1 by the   
mere  extent of his labors4    ,the     
really distinctive achievement of ,paul1
 however1 does not  consist in the mere 
geographical extension of the frontiers 
of the  ,church1 important as that work 
was2 it lies in a totally different     
sphere--in the hidden realm of          
thought4#f ,what was really standing  in
 the way of the ,gentile mission was not
 the physical barriers  presented by sea
 and mountain1 it was rather the great  
barrier of  religious principle4        
,particularism was written plain upon   

the pages  of the ,old ,testament2 in   
emphatic language the ,scriptures       
imposed  upon the true ,israelite the   
duty of separateness from the ,gentile  
world4 ,gentiles might indeed be brought
 in1 but only when they  acknowledged   
the prerogatives of ,israel and united  
themselves with  the ,jewish nation4 ,if
 premonitions of a different doctrine   
were to  be found1 they were couched in 
the mysterious language of prophecy2    
what seemed to be fundamental for the   
present was the doctrine of  the special
 covenant between ,jehovah and ,his     
chosen people4      #f ,for what        
follows1 compare the article cited in   
,biblical and    ,theological ,studies1 
pp4 #eee-eeg4    ,this particularism of 
the ,old ,testament might have been     
overcome  by practical considerations1  
especially by the consideration  that   
since as a matter of fact the ,gentiles 
would never accept  circumcision and    
submit to the ,law the only way to carry
 on the  broader work was quietly to    

keep the more burdensome requirements   
of the ,law in abeyance4 ,this method   
would have been the method  of          
liberalism4 ,and it would have been     
utterly futile4 ,it would  have meant an
 irreparable injury to the religious    
conscience2 it  would have sacrificed   
the good conscience of the missionary   
and the  authoritativeness of his       
proclamation4 ,liberalism would never   
have  conquered the world4              
,fortunately liberalism was not the     
method of ,paul4 ,paul was not a        
practical ,christian who regarded life  
as superior to doctrine1 and  practice  
as superior to principle4 ,on the       
contrary1 he overcame the  principle of 
,jewish particularism in the only way in
 which it could  be overcome2 he        
overcame principle by principle4 ,it was
 not ,paul  the practical missionary1   
but ,paul the theologian1 who was the   
real  apostle to the ,gentiles4    ,in  
his theology he avoided certain errors  
which lay near at  hand4 ,he avoided the

 error of ,marcion1 who in the middle of
 the  second century combated ,jewish   
particularism by representing the  whole
 of the ,old ,testament economy as evil 
and as the work of a  being hostile to  
the good ,god4 ,that error would have   
deprived  the ,church of the prestige   
which it derived from the possession  of
 an ancient and authoritative ,book2 as 
a merely new religion  ,christianity    
never could have appealed to the        
,gentile world4 ,paul  avoided also the 
error of the so-called ,epistle of      
,barnabas1  which1 while it accepted the
 ,old ,testament1 rejected the entire   
,jewish interpretation of it2 the ,old  
,testament ,law1 according to  the      
,epistle of ,barnabas1 was never        
intended to require literal  sacrifices 
and circumcision1 in the way in which it
 was interpreted  by the ,jews4 ,that   
error1 also1 would have been disastrous2
 it would  have introduced such         
boundless absurdity into the ,christian 
use of  the ,scriptures that all truth  

and soberness would have fled4          
,avoiding all such errors1 ,paul was    
able with a perfectly good  conscience  
to accept the priceless support of the  
,old ,testament  ,scriptures in his     
missionary work while at the same time  
he rejected  for his ,gentile converts  
the ceremonial requirements which the   
,old  ,testament imposed4 ,the solution 
of the problem is set forth clearly  in 
the ,epistle to the ,galatians4 ,the    
,old ,testament ,law1 according  to     
,paul1 was truly authoritative and truly
 divine4 ,but it was  temporary2 it was 
authoritative only until the fulfillment
 of the  promise should come4 ,it was a 
schoolmaster to bring the ,jews to      
,christ2 and 7such is the implication1  
according to the ,epistle to  the       
,romans7 it could also be a schoolmaster
 to bring every one to  ,christ1 since  
it was intended to produce the necessary
 consciousness  of sin4    ,this        
treatment of the ,old ,testament was the
 only practical solution  of the        

difficulty4 ,but ,paul did not adopt it 
because it was  practical2 he adopted it
 because it was true4 ,it never occurred
 to  him to hold principle in abeyance  
even for the welfare of the souls  of   
men4 ,the deadening blight of pragmatism
 had never fallen upon his  soul4       
,the ,pauline grounding of the ,gentile 
mission is not to be limited1  however1 
to his specific answer to the question1 
,what then is the  law8 ,it extends     
rather to his entire unfolding of the   
significance  of the ,cross of ,christ4 
,he exhibited the temporary character of
 the  ,old ,testament dispensation by   
showing that a new era had begun1 by    
exhibiting positively the epoch-making  
significance of the ,cross4    ,at this 
point undoubtedly he had precursors4    
,the significance of  the ,cross of     
,christ was by no means entirely unknown
 to those who  had been disciples before
 him2 he himself places the assertion   
that  ,christ died for our sins         
according to the ,scriptures as one of  

the  things that he had received4 ,but  
unless all indications fail ,paul  did  
bring an unparalleled enrichment of the 
understanding of the  ,cross4 ,for the  
first time the death of ,christ was     
viewed in its full  historical and      
logical relationships4 ,and thereby     
,gentile freedom1  and the freedom of   
the entire ,christian ,church for all   
time1 was  assured4    ,inwardly1       
indeed1 the early ,jerusalem disciples  
were already free  from the ,law2 they  
were really trusting for their salvation
 not to  their observance of the ,law   
but to what ,christ had done for them4  
,but apparently they did not fully know 
that they were free2 or  rather they did
 not know exactly why they were free4   
,the case of  ,cornelius1 according to  
the ,book of ,acts1 was exceptional2    
,cornelius  had been received into the  
,church without being circumcised1 but  
only by direct command of the ,spirit4  
,similar direct and unexplained         
guidance was apparently to be waited for

 if the case was to be  repeated4 ,even 
,stephen had not really advocated the   
immediate  abolition of the ,temple or  
the abandonment of ,jewish prerogatives 
in  the presence of ,gentiles4    ,the  
freedom of the early ,jerusalem ,church1
 in other words1 was  not fully grounded
 in a comprehensive view of the meaning 
of  ,jesus' work4 ,such freedom could   
not be permanent4 ,it was open to       
argumentative attacks1 and as a matter  
of fact such attacks were not  long     
absent4 ,the very life of the ,gentile  
mission at ,antioch was  threatened by  
the ,judaizers who came down from       
,jerusalem and said1  ,except ye be     
circumcised after the manner of ,moses1 
ye cannot be  saved4 ,practical         
considerations1 considerations of church
 polity1  were quite powerless before   
such attacks2 freedom was held by but a 
precarious tenure until its underlying  
principles were established4            
,christianity1 in other words1 could not
 live without theology4 ,and  the first 

great ,christian theologian was ,paul4  
,it was ,paul1 then1 who established the
 principles of the ,gentile  mission4   
,others labored in detail1 but it was he
 who was at the  heart of the movement4 
,it was he1 far more than any other one 
man1  who carried the gospel out from   
,judaism into the ,gentile world4       
,the importance of the achievement must 
be apparent to every  historian1 no     
matter how unsympathetic his attitude   
toward the  content of ,christianity may
 be4 ,the modern ,european world1 what  
may  be called western civilization1 is 
descended from the civilization  of     
,greece and ,rome4 ,our languages are   
either derived directly from  the       
,latin1 or at any rate connected with   
the same great family4 ,our  literature 
and art are inspired by the great       
classical models4 ,our  law and         
government have never been independent  
of the principles  enunciated by the    
statesmen of ,greece1 and put into      
practice by  the statesmen of ,rome4    

,our philosophies are obliged to return 
ever  anew to the questions which were  
put1 if not answered1 by ,plato and     
,aristotle4    ,yet there has entered   
into this current of ,indo-,european    
civilization an element from a very     
diverse and very unexpected  source4    
,how comes it that a thoroughly ,semitic
 book like the ,bible  has been accorded
 a place in medieval and modern life to 
which the  glories of ,greek literature 
can never by any possibility aspire8    
,how  comes it that the words of that   
book have not only made political       
history--moved armies and built         
empires--but also have entered into  the
 very fabric of men's souls8 ,the       
intrinsic value of the ,book  would not 
alone have been sufficient to break down
 the barriers  which opposed its        
acceptance by the ,indo-,european race4 
,the race  from which the ,bible came   
was despised in ancient times and it is 
despised to-day4 ,how comes it then that
 a product of that race  has been       

granted such boundless influence8 ,how  
comes it that the  barriers which have  
always separated ,jew from ,gentile1    
,semite from  ,aryan1 have at one point 
been broken through1 so that the current
 of  ,semitic life has been allowed to  
flow unchecked over the rich fields  of 
our modern civilization8    ,the answer 
to these questions1 to the large extent 
which the  preceding outline has        
attempted to define1 must be sought in  
the  inner life of a ,jew of ,tarsus4   
,in dealing with the apostle ,paul we   
are dealing with one of the moving      
factors of the world's history4    ,that
 conclusion might at first sight seem to
 affect unfavorably the  special use to 
which it is proposed1 in the present    
discussion1 to  put the examination of  
,paul4 ,the more important ,paul was as 
a man1  it might be said1 the less      
important he becomes as a witness to the
  origin of ,christianity4 ,if his mind 
had been a blank tablet prepared  to    
receive impressions1 then the historian 

could be sure that what  is found in    
,paul's ,epistles about ,jesus is a true
 reflection of what  ,jesus really was4 
,but as a matter of fact ,paul was a    
genius4 ,it  is of the nature of genius 
to be creative4 ,may not what ,paul says
  about ,jesus and the origin of        
,christianity1 therefore1 be no mere    
reflection of the facts1 but the        
creation of his own mind8    ,the       
difficulty is not so serious as it      
seems4 ,genius is not  incompatible with
 honesty--certainly not the genius of   
,paul4 ,when1  therefore1 ,paul sets    
himself to give information about       
certain  plain matters of fact that came
 under his observation1 as in the  first
 two chapters of ,galatians1 there are  
not many historians  who are inclined to
 refuse him credence4 ,but the witness  
of ,paul  depends not so much upon      
details as upon the total fact of his   
religious life4 ,it is that fact which  
is to be explained4 ,to say  merely that
 ,paul was a genius and therefore       

unaccountable is no  explanation4       
,certainly it is not an explanation     
satisfactory to  modern historians4     
,during the progress of modern          
criticism1 students  of the origin of   
,christianity have accepted the         
challenge presented  by the fact of     
,paul's religious life2 they have felt  
obliged to  account for the emergence of
 that fact at just the point when it    
actually appeared4 ,but the explanations
 which they have offered1 as  the       
following discussion may show1 are      
insufficient2 and it is just  the       
greatness of ,paul for which the        
explanations do not account4 ,the       
religion of ,paul is too large a        
building to have been erected upon a    
pin-point4    ,moreover1 the greater a  
man is1 the wider is the area of his    
contact with his environment1 and the   
deeper is his penetration  into the     
spiritual realm4 ,the man in the street 
is not so good an  observer as is       
sometimes supposed2 he observes only    

what lies on  the surface4 ,paul1 on the
 other hand1 was able to sound the      
depths4  ,it is1 on the whole1 certainly
 no disadvantage to the student of      
early ,christianity that that particular
 member of the early ,church  whose     
inner life stands clearest in the light 
of history was no mere  nonentity1 but  
one of the commanding figures in the    
history of the  world4    ,but what1 in 
essence1 is the fact of which the       
historical  implications are here to be 
studied8 ,what was the religion of      
,paul8  ,no attempt will now be made to 
answer the question in detail2 no       
attempt will be made to add to the long 
list of expositions of the  ,pauline    
theology4 ,but what is really essential 
is abundantly plain1  and may be put in 
a word--the religion of ,paul was a     
religion of  redemption4 ,it was founded
 not upon what had always been true1 but
  upon what had recently happened2 not  
upon right ideas about ,god and  ,his   
relations to the world1 but upon one    

thing that ,god had done2  not upon an  
eternal truth of the fatherhood of ,god1
 but upon the  fact that ,god had chosen
 to become the ,father of those who     
should  accept the redemption offered by
 ,christ4 ,the religion of ,paul was    
rooted altogether in the redeeming work 
of ,jesus ,christ4 ,jesus for  ,paul was
 primarily not a ,revealer1 but a       
,saviour4    ,the character of          
,paulinism as a redemptive religion     
involved a  certain conception of the   
,redeemer1 which is perfectly plain on  
the  pages of the ,pauline ,epistles4   
,jesus ,christ1 ,paul believed1 was a   
heavenly being2 ,paul placed ,him       
clearly on the side of ,god and not  on 
the side of men4 ,not by man but by     
,jesus ,christ1 he says at the          
beginning of ,galatians1 and the same   
contrast is implied everywhere  in the  
,epistles4 ,this heavenly ,redeemer     
existed before ,his earthly  life2 came 
then to earth1 where ,he lived a true   
human life of  humiliation2 suffered on 

the cross for the sins of those upon    
whom  the curse of the ,law justly      
rested2 then rose again from the dead by
  a mighty act of ,god's power2 and is  
present always with ,his ,church        
through ,his ,spirit4    ,that          
representation has become familiar to   
the devout ,christian1 but  to the      
modern historian it seems very strange4 
,for to the modern  historian1 on the   
basis of the modern view of ,jesus1 the 
procedure  of ,paul seems to be nothing 
else than the deification by ,paul of a 
man who had lived but a few years before
 and had died a shameful  death4#g ,it  
is not necessary to argue the question  
whether in  ,rom4 ix4 #e ,paul actually 
applies the term ,god to                
,jesus--certainly  he does so according 
to the only natural interpretation of   
his  words as they stand--what is really
 important is that everywhere  the      
relationship in which ,paul stands      
toward ,jesus is not the  mere          
relationship of disciple to master1 but 

is a truly religious  relationship4     
,jesus is to ,paul everywhere the object
 of religious  faith4      #g ,h4 ,j4   
,holtzmann 7in ,protestantische         
,monatshefte1 iv1 #aijj1 pp4    #dfe;f41
 and in ,christliche ,welt1 xxiv1 #aiaj1
 column #aec7 admitted    that for the  
rapid apotheosis of ,jesus as it is     
attested by the    epistles of ,paul he 
could cite no parallel in the religious 
history    of the race4    ,that fact   
would not be quite so surprising if     
,paul had been of  polytheistic         
training1 if he had grown up in a       
spiritual environment  where the        
distinction between divine and human was
 being broken  down4 ,even in such an   
environment1 indeed1 the religion of    
,paul  would have been quite without    
parallel4 ,the deification of the       
eastern rulers or of the emperors       
differs in toto from the ,pauline       
attitude toward ,jesus4 ,it differs in  
seriousness and fervor2 above  all it   
differs in its complete lack of         

exclusiveness4 ,the lordship  of the    
ruler admitted freely1 and was indeed   
always accompanied by1  the lordship of 
other gods2 the lordship of ,jesus1 in  
the religion  of ,paul1 was absolutely  
exclusive4 ,for ,paul1 there was one    
,lord and  one ,lord only4 ,when any    
parallel for such a religious           
relationship  of a notable man to one of
 his contemporaries with whose most     
intimate friends he had come into close 
contact can be cited in the  religious  
annals of the race1 then it will be time
 for the historian  to lose his wonder  
at the phenomenon of ,paul4    ,but the 
wonder of the historian reaches its     
climax when he remembers  that ,paul was
 not a polytheist or a pantheist1 but a 
,jew1 to whom  monotheism was the very  
breath of life4#h ,the ,judaism of      
,paul's day  was certainly nothing if   
not monotheistic4 ,but in the intensity 
of  his monotheism ,paul was not        
different from his countrymen4 ,no one  
can possibly show a deeper scorn for the

 many gods of the heathen  than can     
,paul4 ,for though there be that are    
called gods1 he says1  whether in heaven
 or in earth1 7as there be gods many1   
and lords  many17 ,but to us there is   
but one ,god1 the ,father1 of whom are  
all  things1 and we unto him2 and one   
,lord ,jesus ,christ1 by whom are  all  
things1 and we by him4 7,i ,cor4 viii4  
#e1 #f47 ,yet it was this  monotheist   
sprung of a race of monotheists1 who    
stood in a full  religious relation to a
 man who had died but a few years       
before2 it  was this monotheist who     
designated that man1 as a matter of     
course1  by the supreme religious term  
,lord1 and did not hesitate to apply  to
 ,him the passages in the ,greek ,old   
,testament where that term was  used to 
translate the most awful name of the    
,god of ,israel6 ,the  religion of ,paul
 is a phenomenon well worthy of the     
attention of the  historian4      #h    
,compare ,r4 ,seeberg1 ,der ,ursprung   
des ,christusglaubens1 #aiad1    pp4    

#a;f4    ,in recent years that          
phenomenon has been explained in four   
different  ways4 ,the four ways have not
 always been clearly defined2 they have 
sometimes entered into combination with 
one another4 ,but they are  logically   
distinct1 and to a certain extent they  
may be treated  separately4    ,there is
 first of all the supernaturalistic     
explanation1 which  simply accepts at   
its face value what ,paul presupposes   
about ,jesus4  ,according to this       
explanation1 ,jesus was really a        
heavenly being1  who in order to redeem 
sinful man came voluntarily to earth1   
suffered for the sins of others on the  
cross1 rose from the dead1  ascended to 
the right hand of ,god1 from whence ,he 
shall come to  judge the quick and the  
dead4 ,if this representation be        
correct1  then there is really nothing  
to explain2 the religious attitude of   
,paul toward ,jesus was not an          
apotheosis of a man1 but recognition as 
divine of one who really was divine4    

,the other three explanations are alike 
in that they all reject                 
supernaturalism1 they all deny the      
entrance into human history of  any     
creative act of ,god1 unless indeed all 
the course of nature be  regarded as    
creative4 ,they all agree1 therefore1 in
 explaining the  religion of ,paul as a 
phenomenon which emerged in the course  
of  history under the operation of      
natural causes4    ,the most widespread 
of these naturalistic explanations of   
the  religion of ,paul is what may be   
called the liberal view4 ,the name  is  
highly unsatisfactory2 it has been used 
and misused until it  has often come to 
mean almost nothing4 ,but no other term 
is ready  to hand4 ,ritschlian might    
possibly describe the phenomenon that   
is meant1 but that term is perhaps too  
narrow1 and would imply a  degree of    
logical connection with the ,ritschlian 
theology which  would not fit all forms 
of the phenomenon4 ,the best that can be
  done1 therefore1 is to define the term

 liberal in a narrower way  than is     
sometimes customary and then use it in  
distinction not only  from traditional  
and supernaturalistic views1 but also   
from various  radical views1 which will 
demand separate consideration4    ,the  
numerous forms of the liberal view      
differ from other  naturalistic         
hypotheses in that they attribute       
supreme importance  in the formation of 
the religion of ,paul to the influence  
of the  real historic person1 ,jesus of 
,nazareth1 and to the experience which  
,paul had near ,damascus when he thought
 he saw that person risen  from the     
dead4 ,jesus of ,nazareth1 according to 
the liberal view1  was the greatest of  
the children of men4 ,his greatness     
centered in  ,his consciousness of      
standing toward ,god in the relation of 
son to  ,father4 ,that consciousness of 
sonship1 at least in its purity1 ,jesus 
discovered1 was not shared by others4   
,some category was therefore  needed to 
designate the uniqueness of ,his        

sonship4 ,the category  which ,he       
adopted1 though with reluctance1 and    
probably toward the  end of ,his        
ministry1 was the category of           
,messiahship4 ,his ,messianic           
consciousness was thus not fundamental  
in ,his conception of ,his  mission2    
certainly it did not mean that ,he put  
,his own person into  ,his gospel4 ,he  
urged men1 not to take ,him as the      
object of their  faith1 but only to take
 ,him as an example for their faith2 not
 to  have faith in ,him1 but to have    
faith in ,god like ,his faith4 ,such was
  the impression of ,his personality1   
however1 that after ,his death  the love
 and reverence of ,his disciples for    
,him not only induced  the              
hallucinations in which they thought    
they saw ,him risen from  the dead but  
also led them to attribute to ,his      
person a kind of  religious importance  
which ,he had never claimed4 ,they began
 to make  ,him not only an example for  
faith but also the object of faith4 ,the

  ,messianic element in ,his life began 
now to assume an importance  which ,he  
had never attributed to it2 the         
disciples began to ascribe  to ,him     
divine attributes4 ,this process was    
somewhat hindered in the  case of ,his  
intimate friends by the fact that they  
had seen ,him  under all the limitations
 of ordinary human life4 ,but in the    
case of  the apostle ,paul1 who had     
never seen ,him1 the process of         
deification  could go on unchecked4     
,what was fundamental1 however1 even for
  ,paul1 was an impression of the real  
person of ,jesus of ,nazareth2  that    
impression was conveyed to ,paul in     
various ways--especially by  the brave  
and pure lives of ,jesus' disciples1    
which had impressed  him1 against his   
will1 even when he was still a          
persecutor4 ,but  ,paul was a child of  
his time4 ,he was obliged1 therefore1 to
 express  that which he had received    
from ,jesus in the categories that were 
ready to hand4 ,those categories as     

applied to ,jesus constitute the        
,pauline theology4 ,thus ,paul was      
really the truest disciple of ,jesus  in
 the depths of his inner life1 but his  
theology was the outer  and perishable  
shell for the precious kernel4 ,his     
theology was the  product of his time1  
and may now be abandoned2 his religion  
was  derived from ,jesus of ,nazareth   
and is a permanent possession of the    
human race4    ,such in bare outline is 
the liberal view of the origin of       
,paulinism  and of ,christianity4 ,it   
has been set forth in so many brilliant 
treatises that no one may be singled out
 as clearly representative4  ,perhaps   
,von ,harnack's ,what is                
,christianity8#i1 among the popular     
expositions1 may still serve as well as 
any other4 ,the liberal  view of the    
origin of ,christianity seemed at one   
time likely  to dominate the religious  
life of the modern world2 it found      
expression in countless sermons and     
books of devotion as well as  in        

scientific treatises4 ,now1 however1    
there are some indications  that it is  
beginning to fall2 it is being attacked 
by radicalism  of various kinds4 ,with  
some of these attacks it will not now be
  worth while to deal2 it will not be   
worth while to deal with  those forms of
 radicalism which reject what have been 
designated  as the two starting-points  
for an investigation of the origin of   
,christianity--the historicity of ,jesus
 and the genuineness of  the major      
epistles of ,paul4 ,these hypotheses are
 some of them  interesting on the       
negative side1 they are interesting for 
their  criticism of the dominant liberal
 view2 but when it comes to their  own  
attempts at reconstruction they have    
never advanced beyond the  purest       
dilettantism4 ,attention will now be    
confined to the work  of historians who 
have really attempted seriously to      
grapple with  the historical problems1  
and specifically to those who have given
  attention to the problem of ,paul4    

#i ,harnack1 ,das ,wesen des            
,christentums1 #aijj4 7,english         
,translation1 ,what is ,christianity81  
#aija47    ,two lines of explanation    
have been followed in recent years by   
those  who reject1 in the interest of   
more radical views1 the liberal  account
 of the origin of ,paulinism4 ,but these
 two lines run to a  certain point      
together2 they both reject the liberal  
emphasis upon  the historic person of   
,jesus as accounting for the origin of  
,paul's  religion4 ,the criticism of the
 customary view was put sharply by ,w4  
,wrede in #aijdaj1 when he declared that
 ,paul was no disciple of  ,jesus1 but a
 second founder of ,christianity4 ,the  
religious life of  ,paul1 ,wrede        
insisted1 was not really derived from   
,jesus of ,nazareth4  ,what was         
fundamental for ,paul was not the       
example of ,jesus1 but  ,his redeeming  
work as embraced in the death and       
resurrection1  which were regarded as   
events of a cosmic significance4 ,the   

theology of ,paul--his interpretation of
 the death and resurrection  of         
,jesus--cannot1 therefore1 be separated 
from his religion2 on  the contrary1 it 
is in connection with the theology1 and 
not in  connection with any impression  
of the character of ,jesus1 that the    
fervor of ,paul's religious life runs   
full and free4 ,theology and  religion  
in ,paul1 therefore1 must stand or fall 
together2 if one  was derived from      
extra-,christian sources1 probably the  
other must  be so derived also4 ,and    
such1 as a matter of fact1 ,wrede       
concludes  is the case4 ,the religion of
 ,paul is not based at all upon ,jesus  
of  ,nazareth4      #aj ,wrede1 ,paulus1
 #aijd4 7,english ,translation1 ,paul1  
#aijg47    ,such1 in true import1 though
 not in word or in detail1 was the      
startling criticism which ,wrede        
directed against the liberal account  of
 the origin of ,paulinism4 ,he had      
really only made explicit a type  of    
criticism which had gradually been      

becoming inevitable for some  time      
before4 ,hence the importance of his    
little book4 ,the current               
reconstruction of the origin of         
,christianity had produced a ,jesus  and
 a ,paul who really had little in common
 with each other4 ,wrede1  in his       
incomparably succinct and incisive way1 
had the courage to  say so4    ,but if  
,paulinism was not derived from ,jesus  
of ,nazareth1 whence was  it derived8   
,here the two lines of radical opinion  
begin to diverge4  ,according to ,wrede1
 who was supported by ,m4 ,brckner1#aa  
working  contemporaneously1 the ,pauline
 conception of ,christ1 which was       
fundamental in ,paul's religious thought
 and life1 was derived from  the        
pre-,christian conception of the        
,messiah which ,paul already had  before
 his conversion4 ,the ,messiah1 in the  
thought of the ,jews1  was not always   
conceived of merely as a king of        
,david's line2  sometimes he was        
regarded rather as a mysterious1        

prexistent1  heavenly being who was to  
come suddenly with the clouds of heaven 
and be the judge of all the earth4 ,this
 transcendent conception  which is      
attested by the ,jewish apocalypses like
 the ,ethiopic  ,book of ,enoch1 was1   
,wrede maintained1 the conception of the
 ,jew1  ,saul of ,tarsus4 ,when1        
therefore1 ,paul in his ,epistles       
represents  ,christ as prexistent1 and  
as standing close to the ,supreme ,being
 in  rulership and judgment1 the        
phenomenon1 though it may seem strange  
to us1 is not really unique2 it is      
exactly what is found in the            
apocalypses4 ,what was new in ,paul1 as 
over against pre-,christian  ,judaism1  
was the belief that the heavenly        
,messiah had already come  to earth and 
carried out a work of redemption4 ,this 
belief was  not derived1 ,wrede         
maintained1 from any impression of the  
exalted  moral character of ,jesus2 on  
the contrary1 if ,paul had really come  
into any close contact with the         

historical ,jesus1 he might have  had   
difficulty in identifying ,him so       
completely with the heavenly  ,messiah2 
the impression of the truly human       
character of ,jesus and  of ,his        
subjection to all the ordinary limits of
 earthly life would  have hindered the  
ascription to ,him of the transcendent  
attributes4  ,jesus1 for ,paul1 merely  
provided the one fact that the ,messiah 
had  already come to earth and died and 
risen again4 ,operating with that  fact1
 interpreting the coming of the ,messiah
 as an act of redemption  undertaken out
 of love for men1 ,paul was able to     
develop all the  fervor of his          
,christ-religion4      #aa ,die         
,entstehung der paulinischen            
,christologie1 #aijc2 ,zum    ,thema    
,jesus und ,paulus1 in ,zeitschrift fr  
die neutestamentliche    ,wissenschaft1 
vii1 #aijf1 pp4 #aab-aai2 ,der ,apostel 
,paulus als    ,zeuge wider das         
,christusbild der ,evangelien1 in       
,protestantische    ,monatshefte1 x1    

#aijf1 pp4 #ceb-cfd4    ,in very recent 
years1 another account of the origin of 
,paulinism is  becoming increasingly    
prevalent4 ,this account agrees with    
,wrede in  rejecting the liberal        
derivation of the religion of ,paul from
 an  impression of the historical person
 of ,jesus4 ,but it differs from  ,wrede
 in its view of the source from which   
the religion of ,paul  is actually to be
 derived4 ,according to this latest     
hypothesis1  ,paulinism was based not   
upon the pre-,christian ,jewish         
conception of  the ,messiah1 but upon   
contemporary pagan religion4    ,this   
hypothesis represents the application to
 the problem of  ,paulinism of the      
method of modern comparative religion4  
,about twenty  years ago that method    
began to be extended resolutely into the
 ,new  ,testament field1 and it has been
 becoming increasingly prevalent  ever  
since4 ,despite the prevalence of the   
method1 however1 and the  variety of its
 application1 one great comprehensive   

work may now  fairly lay claim to be    
taken as summing up the results4 ,that  
work is  the book of ,w4 ,bousset1      
entitled ,kyrios ,christos1 which       
appeared  in #aiac4ab ,it is perhaps too
 early as yet to estimate the full      
importance of ,bousset's work4 ,but     
unless all indications fail1 the  work  
is really destined to mark an epoch in  
the history of ,new  ,testament         
criticism4 ,since the days of ,f4 ,c4   
,baur1 in the former  half of the       
nineteenth century1 there has been no   
such original1  comprehensive1 and      
grandly conceived rewriting of early    
,christian  history as has now appeared 
in ,bousset's ,kyrios ,christos4 ,the   
only question is whether originality1 in
 this historical sphere1 is  always     
compatible with truth4      #ab ,compare
 also ,bousset1 ,jesus der ,herr1 #aiaf4
    ,according to ,bousset1 the         
historicity of ,jesus is to be          
maintained2  ,jesus was really a        
religious teacher of incomparable power4

 ,but  ,bousset rejects much more of the
 ,gospel account of ,jesus' life than   
is rejected in the ordinary liberal     
view2 ,bousset seems even to be         
doubtful as to whether ,jesus ever      
presented ,himself to ,his disciples  as
 the ,messiah1 the ,messianic element in
 the ,gospels being regarded  for the   
most part as a mere reflection of the   
later convictions of  the disciples4    
,after the crucifixion1 the disciples in
 ,jerusalem1  ,bousset continues1 were  
convinced that ,jesus had risen from the
  dead1 and that ,he was truly the      
,messiah4 ,they conceived of ,his       
,messiahship chiefly under the category 
of the ,son of ,man2 ,jesus1  they      
believed1 was the heavenly being who in 
their interpretation of  the ,book of   
,daniel and in the apocalypses appears  
in the presence  of the supreme ,god as 
the one who is to judge the world4 ,this
  heavenly ,son of ,man was taken from  
them for a time1 but they looked  with  
passionate eagerness for ,his speedy    

return4 ,the piety of the  early        
,jerusalem ,church was therefore        
distinctly eschatological2 it  was      
founded not upon any conviction of a    
present vital relation to  ,jesus1 but  
on the hope of ,his future coming4 ,in  
the ,greek-speaking  ,christian         
communities of such cities as ,antioch  
and ,tarsus1 ,bousset  continues1 an    
important additional step was taken2    
,jesus there  began to be not only hoped
 for as the future judge but also adored
  as the present ,lord4 ,he came to be  
regarded as present in the  meetings of 
the ,church4 ,the term ,lord1 with the  
conception that  it represents1 was     
never1 according to ,bousset1 applied to
 ,jesus in  the primitive ,palestinian  
,church2 it was first applied to ,him in
  ,hellenistic ,christian communities   
like the one at ,antioch4 ,and it  was  
there derived distinctly from the       
prevalent pagan religion4 ,in  the type 
of religion familiar to the disciples at
 ,antioch1 the term  ,lord was used to  

denote the cult-god1 especially in the  
so-called  mystery religions2 and the   
,antioch disciples naturally used the   
same term to designate the object of    
their own adoration4 ,but with  the term
 went the idea2 ,jesus was now          
considered to be present in  the        
meetings of the ,church1 just as the    
cult-gods of the pagan  religions were  
considered to be present in the worship 
practiced by  those religions4 ,an      
important step had been taken beyond the
 purely  eschatological piety of the    
,jerusalem disciples4    ,but how about 
,paul8 ,here is to be found one of the  
boldest  elements in all the bold       
reconstruction of ,bousset4 ,paul1      
,bousset  believes1 was not connected in
 any intimate way with the primitive    
,christianity in ,palestine2 what he    
received he received rather  from the   
,hellenistic ,christianity1 just        
described1 of cities like  ,antioch4 ,he
 received1 therefore1 the ,hellenistic  
conception of  ,jesus as ,lord4 ,but he 

added to that conception by connecting  
the  ,lord with the ,spirit4 ,the ,lord 
thus became present not only in  the    
meetings of the ,church for worship but 
also in the individual  lives of the    
believers4 ,paulinism as it appears in  
the ,epistles was  thus complete4 ,but  
this distinctly ,pauline contribution1  
like the  conception of the ,lordship of
 ,jesus to which it was added1 was of   
pagan origin2 it was derived from the   
mystical piety of the time1  with its   
sharp dualism between a material and a  
spiritual realm  and its notion of the  
transformation of man by immediate      
contact  with the divine4 ,paulinism1   
therefore1 according to ,bousset1 was a 
religion of redemption4 ,but as such it 
was derived not at all from  the        
historical ,jesus 7whose optimistic     
teaching contained no thought  of       
redemption7 but from the pessimistic    
dualism of the pagan world4  ,the       
liberal distinction between ,pauline    
religion and ,pauline  theology1 the    

attempt at saving ,paul's religion by   
the sacrifice  of his theology1 is here 
abandoned1 and all that is most clearly 
distinctive of ,paulinism 7though of    
course some account is taken of  the    
contribution of his ,jewish inheritance 
and of his own genius7 is  derived from 
pagan sources4    ,the hypothesis of    
,bousset1 together with the rival       
reconstructions  which have just been   
outlined1 will be examined in the       
following  discussion4 ,but before they 
can be examined it will be necessary to 
say a word about the sources of         
information with regard to the life  of 
,paul4 ,no discussion of the literary   
questions can indeed here be            
undertaken4 ,almost all that can be done
 is to set forth very briefly  the      
measure of agreement which has been     
attained in this field1 and  the bearing
 of the points that are still disputed  
upon the subject  of the present        
investigation4    ,the sources of       
information about ,paul are contained   

almost  exclusively in the ,new         
,testament4 ,they are1 first1 the       
,pauline  ,epistles1 and1 second1 the   
,book of ,acts4    ,four of the ,pauline
 ,epistles--,galatians1 #a and #b       
,corinthians1  and ,romans--were        
accepted as certainly genuine by ,f4 ,c4
 ,baur1  the founder of the ,tbingen    
,school of criticism in the former  half
 of the nineteenth century4 ,this       
favorable estimate of the  major        
epistles has never been abandoned by any
 number of  really serious historians1  
and three of the other epistles--#a     
,thessalonians1 ,philippians1 and       
,philemon--have now been added to the   
homologoumena4 ,seven epistles1         
therefore1 are accepted as genuine      
to-day by all historians except a few   
extremists4 ,of the remaining  epistles1
 ,colossians is accepted by the majority
 of investigators  of all shades of     
opinion1 and even in the case of #b     
,thessalonians  and ,ephesians1 the     
acceptance of the hypothesis of         

genuineness is  no longer regarded as a 
clear mark of conservatism1 these two   
epistles being regarded as genuine      
letters of ,paul by some even of  those 
who are not in general favorable to the 
traditional view of  the ,new           
,testament4    ,with regard to the      
,pastoral ,epistles--#a and #b ,timothy 
and ,titus--the  issue is more clearly  
drawn4 ,these epistles1 at least in     
their  entirety1 are seldom regarded as 
genuine except by those who  adopt in   
general the traditional view of the ,new
 ,testament and  the supernaturalistic  
conception of the origin of             
,christianity4  ,that does not mean that
 the case of the ,pastoral ,epistles is 
desperate--certainly the present writer 
is firmly convinced that the  epistles  
are genuine and that a denial of their  
genuineness really  impoverishes in     
important respects our conception of the
 work of  ,paul--but it does mean that  
with regard to these epistles the two   
great contending views concerning the   

,new ,testament come into sharp         
conflict2 common ground1 in other words1
 cannot here be found1 as  in the case  
of the major epistles1 between those who
 hold widely  divergent views as to the 
origin of ,christianity4    ,it would be
 out of place in the present connection 
to discuss the  question of the         
genuineness of the ,pastorals4 ,that    
question is  indeed enormously          
important4 ,it is important for the view
 which  is to be held concerning the    
,new ,testament canon2 it is important  
for any estimate of ,christian          
tradition2 it is important even for  a  
complete estimate of the work of ,paul4 
,but it is not directly  important for  
the question as to the origin of        
,paulinism2 for all  the essential      
features of ,paulinism1 certainly all   
those features  which make ,paulinism1  
upon naturalistic principles1 most      
difficult  of explanation1 appear       
plainly in the accepted epistles4       
,the question of the ,book of ,acts1 on 

the other hand1 is of vital  importance 
even for the present investigation4     
,even that question1  however1 must here
 be dismissed with a word1 though it is 
hoped that  light may be shed upon it by
 the whole of the following discussion4 
,literary evidence of peculiar strength 
may be adduced in favor of  the view    
that the ,book of ,acts was really      
written1 as tradition  affirms1 by a    
companion of ,paul4 ,this evidence is   
based primarily  upon the presence in   
the book of certain sections where the  
narrative is carried on in the first    
person instead of the third4 ,it  is    
generally or even universally admitted  
that these we-sections  are the work of 
an eyewitness1 an actual traveling      
companion of  ,paul4 ,but according to  
the common-sense view--according to the 
first impression made upon every        
ordinary reader--the author of  the     
we-sections was also the author of the  
whole book1 who when he  came in his    
narrative to those parts of the         

missionary journeys of  ,paul where he  
had actually been present with the      
apostolic company  naturally dropped    
into the use of the first person instead
 of the  third4 ,if this common-sense   
view be incorrect1 then a later author  
who produced the completed book has in  
the we-sections simply  made use of an  
eyewitness source4 ,but this hypothesis 
is fraught  with the most serious       
difficulty4 ,if the author of the       
completed  book1 writing at a time long 
after the time of ,paul1 was in the     
we-sections using the work of a         
companion of ,paul1 why did he not      
either say that he was quoting or else  
change the we of the  source to they4   
,the first person plural1 used without  
explanation  by a writer of1 say1 #ajj  
,a4,d4 in a narrative of the journeys of
  ,paul1 would be preposterous4 ,what   
could be the explanation of so          
extraordinary a procedure8    ,only two 
explanations are possible4 ,in the first
 place1 the author  may have retained   

the we with deceitful intent1 with the  
intent  of producing the false          
impression that he himself was a        
companion  of ,paul4 ,this hypothesis is
 fraught with insuperable difficulty    
and is generally rejected4 ,in the      
second place1 the author may  have      
retained the we because he was a mere   
compiler1 copying  out his sources with 
mechanical accuracy1 and so unable to   
make  the simple editorial change of we 
to they4 ,this hypothesis is  excluded  
by the striking similarity of language  
and style between  the we-sections and  
the rest of ,luke-,acts1 which shows    
that if  the author of the completed    
double work is in the we-sections       
making use of a source written by some  
one else1 he has revised  the source so 
as to make it conform to his own style4 
,but if he  revised the source1 he was  
no mere compiler1 and therefore could   
not  have retained the first person     
plural which in the completed book      
produced nonsense4 ,the whole hypothesis

 therefore breaks down4    ,such        
considerations have led a number of     
recent scholars--even of  those who are 
unable to accept the supernaturalistic  
account which  the ,book of ,acts gives 
of the origin of ,christianity--to      
return to  the traditional view that the
 book was actually written by ,luke the 
physician1 a companion of ,paul4 ,the   
argument for ,lucan authorship  has been
 developed with great acumen especially 
by ,von ,harnack#ac4  ,and on the basis 
of purely literary criticism the        
argument is  certainly irrefutable4 ,it 
can be refuted1 if at all1 only through 
a  consideration of the historical      
contents of the book4      #ac ,lukas   
der ,arzt1 #aijf 7,english ,translation1
 ,luke the    ,physician1 #aijg72 ,die  
,apostelgeschichte1 #aijh 7,english     
,translation1 ,the ,acts of the         
,apostles1 #aiji72 ,neue ,untersuchungen
    zur ,apostelgeschichte und zur      
,abfassungszeit der synoptischen        
,evangelien1 #aiaa 7,english            

,translation1 ,the ,date of the ,acts   
and of    the ,synoptic ,gospels1       
#aiaa74    ,such attempts at refutation 
have not been lacking2 the ,lucan       
authorship of ,acts is still rejected by
 the great majority of those  who       
maintain the naturalistic view of the   
origin of ,christianity4  ,the          
objections may be subsumed under two    
main heads4 ,the ,book of  ,acts1 it is 
said1 is not the kind of book that could
 have been  written by a companion of   
,paul1 in the first place because it    
contains an account of miracles1 and in 
the second place1 because  it           
contradicts the ,pauline ,epistles1     
particularly in the account  which it   
gives of the relations between ,paul and
 the ,jerusalem  ,church4    ,the former
 objection is entirely valid on the     
basis of any  naturalistic account of   
the origin of ,christianity4 ,efforts   
have  indeed been made by ,von ,harnack1
 ,c4 ,c4 ,torrey1 and others1 to        
overcome the objection4 ,belief in      

miracles1 it is said1 was very  general 
in the ancient world2 a miraculous      
interpretation could  therefore be      
placed upon happenings for which the    
modern man would  have no difficulty in 
discovering a natural cause4 ,luke was a
 child  of his time2 even in the        
we-sections1 ,von ,harnack insists1     
where the  work of an eyewitness is     
universally recognized1 a               
supernaturalistic  interpretation is    
placed upon natural events--as1 for     
example1 when  ,paul excites the wonder 
of his companions by shaking off into   
the  fire a viper that was no doubt     
perfectly harmless4 ,why1 then1 should  
the presence of the supernatural in the 
rest of the book be used to  refute the 
hypothesis of the ,lucan authorship1 if 
it is not so used  in the               
we-sections8#ad      #ad ,harnack1 ,die 
,apostelgeschichte1 #aijh1 pp4 #aaa-acj 
7,english    ,translation1 ,the ,acts of
 the ,apostles1 #aiji1 pp4 #acc-afa74   
,this method of refuting the objection  

drawn from the presence of the          
supernatural in ,luke-,acts has         
sometimes led to a curious return to    
the rationalizing method of             
interpretation which was prevalent one  
hundred years ago4 ,by that method of   
interpretation even the details  of the 
,new ,testament miracles were accepted  
as historical1 but it  was thought that 
the writers were wrong in regarding     
those details  as miraculous4 ,great    
ingenuity was displayed by such         
rationalists  as ,paulus and many others
 in exhibiting the true natural causes  
of  details which to the first observers
 seemed to be supernatural4  ,such      
rationalizing has usually been thought  
to have received  its death-blow at the 
hands of ,strauss1 who showed that the  
,new  ,testament narratives were either 
to be accepted as a whole--miracles  and
 all--or else regarded as myths1 that   
is1 as the clothing of  religious ideas 
in historical forms4 ,but now1 under the
 impulsion of  literary criticism1 which

 has led away from the position of ,baur
 and  ,strauss and back to the          
traditional view of the authorship and  
date  of the ,new ,testament books1 the 
expedients of the rationalizers have  in
 some cases been revived4    ,the entire
 effort of ,von ,harnack is1 however1   
quite hopeless4 ,the  objection to the  
,lucan authorship of ,acts which is     
drawn from the  supernatural element in 
the narrative is irrefutable on the     
basis  of any naturalistic view of the  
origin of ,christianity4 ,the trouble   
is that the supernatural element in     
,acts does not concern merely  details2 
it lies1 rather1 at the root of the     
whole representation4  ,the origin of   
the ,church1 according to the modern    
naturalistic  reconstruction1 was due to
 the belief of the early disciples in   
the  resurrection of ,jesus2 that belief
 in turn was founded upon certain       
hallucinations in which they thought    
they saw ,jesus alive after  ,his       
passion4 ,in such experiences1 the optic

 nerve is affected not  by an external  
object but by the condition of the      
subject himself4  ,but there are        
limitations to what is possible in      
experiences of  that sort1 especially   
where numbers of persons are affected   
and  at different times4 ,it cannot be  
supposed1 therefore1 that the  disciples
 of ,jesus thought they had any extended
 intercourse with  ,him after ,his      
passion2 momentary appearances1 with    
possibly a few  spoken words1 were all  
that they could have experienced4 ,this 
view  of the origin of the ,church is   
thought to be in accord with the        
all-important testimony of ,paul1       
especially in #a ,cor4 xv4 #c-h where   
he is reproducing a primitive tradition4
 ,thus desperate efforts  are made to   
show that the reference by ,paul to the 
burial of ,jesus  does not by any means 
confirm the accounts given in the       
,gospels  of events connected with the  
empty tomb4 ,sometimes1 indeed1 in      
recent criticism1 the fact of the empty 

tomb is accepted1 and then  explained in
 some naturalistic way4 ,but at any     
rate1 the cardinal  feature of the      
modern reconstruction is that the early 
,church1  including ,paul1 had a        
spiritual rather than a physical        
conception of  the risen body of ,jesus2
 there was no extended intercourse1 it  
is  supposed2 ,jesus appeared to ,his   
disciples momentarily1 in heavenly      
glory4    ,but this entire              
representation is diametrically opposed 
to the  representation in the ,gospel of
 ,luke and in the ,book of ,acts4 ,if   
there is any one writer who emphasizes  
the plain1 physical character  of the   
contact between the disciples and their 
risen ,lord1 it  is the author of       
,luke-,acts4 ,in proof1 it is only      
necessary to  point to ,acts x4 #da1    
where it is said that the risen ,jesus  
held  table-companionship with ,his     
disciples after ,he was risen from the  
dead6 ,but that is only one detail4 ,the
 author of ,acts is firmly  convinced   

that the contact of the risen ,jesus    
with ,his disciples1  though not devoid 
of mysterious features1 involved the    
absence of  the body of ,jesus from the 
tomb and an intercourse 7intermittent1  
it  is true1 but including physical     
proofs of the most definite kind7       
extending over a period of forty days4  
,nothing could possibly be  more        
directly contrary to what the current   
critical view regards as  the real      
account given in the primitive          
,jerusalem ,church and by the  apostle  
,paul4    ,yet on the basis of that     
modern critical view1 ,von ,harnack and 
others have maintained that the book in 
which so false an account is  given of  
the origin of the ,church was actually  
the work of a man of  the apostolic age4
 ,it is no wonder that ,von ,harnack's  
conclusions  have evoked an emphatic    
protest from other naturalistic         
historians4  ,luke was a close associate
 of ,paul4 ,could he possibly have given
 an  account of things absolutely       

fundamental in ,paul's gospel 7#a ,cor4 
xv4 #a-h7 which was so diametrically    
opposed to what ,paul taught8  ,he was  
in ,jerusalem in #eh ,a4,d4 or earlier1 
and during years of  his life was in    
close touch with ,palestinian disciples4
 ,could he  possibly have given an      
account of the origin of the ,jerusalem 
,church  so totally at variance with the
 account which that church itself       
maintained8 ,these questions constitute 
a complete refutation of ,von           
,harnack's view1 when that view is taken
 as a whole4 ,but they do not  at all   
constitute a refutation of the          
conclusions of ,von ,harnack  in the    
sphere of literary criticism4 ,on the   
contrary1 by showing  how inconsistent  
those conclusions are with other        
elements in the  thinking of the        
investigator1 they make only the more   
impressive  the strength of the argument
 which has overcome such obstacles4     
,the objection points out the antinomy  
which exists between the  literary      

criticism of ,von ,harnack and his      
naturalistic account of  the origin of  
,christianity4 ,what that antinomy means
 is merely that  the testimony of ,acts 
to the supernatural origin of           
,christianity1  far from being removed  
by literary criticism1 is strongly      
supported  by it4 ,a companion of ,paul 
could not have been egregiously mistaken
  about the origin of the ,church2 but  
literary criticism establishes          
,luke-,acts as the work of a companion  
of ,paul4 ,hence there is some  reason  
for supposing that the account given in 
this book is  essentially correct1 and  
that the naturalistic reconstruction of 
the  origin of ,christianity must be    
abandoned4    ,the second objection to  
the ,lucan authorship of ,acts is based 
upon  the contradiction which is thought
 to exist between the ,book of  ,acts   
and the ,epistles of ,paul4#ae ,the way 
to test the value of a  historical work1
 it is said1 is to compare it with some 
recognized  authority4 ,with regard to  

most of the narrative in ,acts1 no such 
comparison is possible1 since there is  
no account parallel to  ,acts by which  
it may be tested4 ,but in certain places
 the ,book  of ,acts provides an account
 of events which are also narrated in   
the isolated biographical parts of the  
,pauline ,epistles--notably  in the     
first two chapters of ,galatians4 ,here 
at last is found the  long-sought       
opportunity for comparison4 ,and the    
comparison1 it is  said1 results        
unfavorably to the ,book of ,acts1 which
 is found to  contradict the ,epistle to
 the ,galatians1 not merely in details1 
but  in the whole account which it gives
 of the relation between ,paul  and the 
,jerusalem ,church4 ,but if the ,book of
 ,acts fails to approve  itself in the  
one place where it can be tested by     
comparison with  a recognized authority1
 the presumption is that it may be wrong
  elsewhere as well2 in particular1 it  
is quite impossible that a book  which  
so completely misrepresents what        

happened at a most important  crisis of 
,paul's life could have been written by 
a close friend of  the apostle4      #ae
 ,for what follows1 compare ,jesus and  
,paul1 in ,biblical and    ,theological 
,studies by the ,members of the ,faculty
 of ,princeton    ,theological          
,seminary1 #aiab1 pp4 #eec;f42 ,recent  
,criticism of the ,book    of ,acts1 in 
,princeton ,theological ,review1 xvii1  
#aiai1 pp4 #eic-eig4    ,this argument  
was developed particularly by ,baur and 
,zeller and  their associates in the    
,tbingen ,school4 ,according to ,baur1  
the  major epistles of ,paul constitute 
the primary source of information  about
 the apostolic age2 they should         
therefore be interpreted  without       
reference to any other source4 ,when    
they are so interpreted1  they show that
 the fundamental fact of apostolic      
history was a  conflict between ,paul on
 one side and the original apostles on  
the  other4 ,the conflict1 ,baur        
maintained further1 is particularly     

plain  in the ,epistles to the          
,galatians and ,corinthians1 which      
emphasize  the complete independence of 
,paul with reference to the pillars  of 
the ,jerusalem ,church1 and his         
continued opposition to the  efforts of 
,jewish ,christians to bring the        
,gentiles into subjection  to the       
,jewish ,law--efforts which must have   
been supported to some  extent by the   
attitude of the original apostles4 ,this
 conflict1  ,baur supposed further1     
continued up to the middle of the second
  century2 there was a ,gentile         
,christian party appealing to ,paul  and
 a ,jewish ,christian party appealing to
 ,peter4 ,finally however1  ,baur       
continued1 a compromise was effected2   
the ,pauline party gave  up what was    
really most distinctive in the ,pauline 
doctrine of  justification1 while the   
,petrine party relinquished the demand  
of  circumcision4 ,the ,new ,testament  
documents1 according to ,baur1 are  to  
be dated in accordance with the position

 that they assume in  the conflict2     
those documents which take sides--which 
are strongly  anti-,pauline or strongly 
anti-,petrine--are to be placed early1  
while  those which display a tendency   
toward compromise are to be placed      
late1 at the time when the conflict was 
being settled4 ,such was the            
tendency-criticism of ,baur4 ,by that   
criticism the ,book of ,acts  was dated 
well on in the second century1 because  
it was thought to  display a tendency   
toward compromise--an irenic tendency4  
,this  tendency1 ,baur supposed1        
manifested itself in the ,book of ,acts 
in  a deliberate falsification of       
history2 in order to bring about  peace 
between the ,petrine and the ,pauline   
parties in the ,church1  the author of  
,acts attempted to show by a new account
 of the  apostolic age that ,peter and  
,paul really were in perfect agreement4 
,to that end1 in the ,book of ,acts1    
,paul is ,petrinized1 and ,peter is     
,paulinized2 the sturdy independence of 

,paul1 which actually kept  him long    
away from ,jerusalem after his          
conversion1 gives place1  in ,acts1 to a
 desire of contact with the ,jerusalem  
,church1 which  brought him early to    
,jerusalem and finally led him even to  
accept  for his ,gentile converts1 at   
the ,apostolic ,council1 a portion of   
the ceremonial law4 ,peter1 on the other
 hand1 is represented in ,acts  as      
giving expression at the ,apostolic     
,council to ,pauline sentiments  about  
the ,law2 and all through the book there
 is an elaborate and  unhistorical      
parallelism between ,peter and ,paul4   
,the theory of ,baur did not long       
maintain itself in its entirety4  ,it   
received a searching criticism          
particularly from ,a4 ,ritschl4  ,the   
conflict of the apostolic age1 ,ritschl 
pointed out1 was not a  conflict between
 ,paul and the original apostles1 but   
between all the  apostles 7including    
both ,paul and ,peter7 on the one side1 
and an  extreme ,judaizing party on the 

other2 that conflict did not continue   
throughout the second century2 on the   
contrary1 specifically ,jewish          
,christianity soon ceased to be         
influential1 and the legalistic         
character of the ,old ,catholic ,church 
of the end of the second  century1 in   
which ,christianity was conceived of as 
a new law1 was  due not to any          
compromise with the legalism of the     
,judaizers but to  a natural process of 
degeneration from ,paulinism on purely  
,gentile  ,christian ground4    ,the    
,tbingen dating of the ,new ,testament  
documents1 moreover1  has been abandoned
 under a more thorough investigation of 
early  ,christian literature4 ,a study  
of patristics soon rendered it          
impossible to string out the ,new       
,testament books anywhere throughout    
the second century in the interest of a 
plausible theory of  development4       
,external evidence has led to a much    
earlier dating  of most of the books    
than ,baur's theory required4 ,the      

,tbingen  estimate of the ,book of      
,acts1 in particular1 has for the most  
part been modified2 the book is dated   
much earlier1 and it is no  longer      
thought to be a party document written  
in the interests of a  deliberate       
falsification of history4               
,nevertheless1 the criticism of ,baur   
and ,zeller1 though no longer  accepted 
as a whole1 is still influential2 the   
comparison of ,acts  and ,galatians1    
particularly in that which concerns the 
,apostolic  ,council of ,acts xv1 is    
still often thought to result           
unfavorably  to the ,book of ,acts4     
,even at this point1 however1 a more    
favorable  estimate of ,acts has been   
gaining ground4 ,the cardinal principle 
of ,baur1 to the effect that the major  
epistles of ,paul should be  interpreted
 entirely without reference to the ,book
 of ,acts1 is being  called in question4
 ,such a method of interpretation1 it   
may well be  urged1 is likely to result 
in one-sidedness4 ,if the ,book of ,acts

  commends itself at all as containing  
trustworthy information1 it  should be  
allowed to cast light upon the          
,epistles4 ,the account which  ,paul    
gives in ,galatians is not so complete  
as to render superfluous  any assistance
 which may be derived from an           
independent narrative4  ,and as a matter
 of fact1 no matter what principles of  
interpretation  are held1 the ,book of  
,acts simply must be used in            
interpreting  the ,epistles2 without the
 outline given in ,acts the ,epistles   
would  be unintelligible4#af ,perhaps it
 may turn out1 therefore1 that  ,baur   
produced his imposing reconstruction of 
the apostolic age  by neglecting all    
sources except ,galatians and the       
,corinthian  ,epistles--and then by     
misinterpreting these4      #af ,j4     
,weiss1 ,urchristentum1 #aiad1 p4 #ajg3 
,it is simply    impossible for us to   
erase it the ,book of ,acts so          
completely from    our memory as to read
 the ,epistle to the ,galatians as      

though we had    never known ,acts2     
without the ,book of ,acts we should    
simply not be    able to understand     
,galatians at all4    ,the comparison of
 ,acts and the ,pauline ,epistles will  
be reserved  for the chapters that deal 
with the outline of ,paul's life4 ,it   
will  there be necessary to deal with   
the vexed question of the ,apostolic    
,council4 ,the question is vital for the
 present discussion2 for if it  can     
really be shown that ,paul was in       
fundamental disagreement with  the      
intimate friends of ,jesus of ,nazareth1
 then the way is opened  for supposing  
that he was in disagreement with ,jesus 
,himself4 ,the  question raised by ,baur
 with regard to the ,book of ,acts has a
 most  important bearing upon the       
question of the origin of ,paulinism4   
,all that can now be done1 however1 is  
to point out that the tendency  at the  
present time is toward a higher and     
higher estimate of  the ,book of ,acts4 
,a more careful study of the ,pauline   

,epistles  themselves is exhibiting     
elements in ,paul's thinking which      
justify  more and more clearly the      
account which the ,book of ,acts gives  
of  the relations of ,paul to ,judaism  
and to ,jewish ,christianity4           
,,chapter ,,ii    ,,the ,,early ,,years 
,,chapter ,,ii    ,,the ,,early ,,years 
,before examining the various hypotheses
 which have been advanced to  account   
for the origin of ,paulinism1 the       
investigator must consider  first the   
outline of ,paul's life1 at least so far
 as the formative  years are concerned4 
,paulinism has been explained by the    
influence  upon ,paul of various        
features of his environment4 ,it is     
important1  therefore1 to determine at  
what points ,paul came into contact with
  his environment4 ,what1 in view of the
 outline of his life1 were his  probable
 opportunities for acquainting himself  
with the historical  ,jesus and with the
 primitive ,jerusalem ,church8 ,whence  
did he  derive his ,judaism8 ,where1 if 

at all1 could he naturally have been    
influenced by contemporary paganism8    
,such questions1 it is hoped1  may be   
answered by the two following chapters4 
,in these chapters1 the outline of      
,paul's life will be considered not  for
 its own sake1 but merely for the light 
that it may shed upon the  origin of his
 thought and experience4 ,many          
questions1 therefore1 may  be ignored4  
,for example1 it would here be entirely 
aside from the  point to discuss such   
intricate matters as the history of     
,paul's  journeys to ,corinth attested  
by the ,corinthian ,epistles4 ,the      
present  discussion is concerned only   
with those events in the life of ,paul  
which determined the nature of his      
contact with the surrounding  world1    
both ,jewish and pagan1 and particularly
 the nature of his  contact with ,jesus 
and the earliest disciples of ,jesus4   
,paul was born at ,tarsus1 the chief    
city of ,cilicia4 ,this fact is         
attested only by the ,book of ,acts1 and

 formerly it did not escape             
unchallenged4 ,it was called in         
question1 for example1 in #ahij by      
,krenkel1 in an elaborate argument4#ag  
,but ,krenkel's argument is  now        
completely antiquated1 not merely       
because of the rising credit  of the    
,book of ,acts1 but also because the    
birth of ,paul in a ,greek  city like   
,tarsus is in harmony with modern       
reconstructions4 ,krenkel  argued1 for  
example1 that the apostle shows little  
acquaintance  with ,greek culture1 and  
therefore could not have spent his youth
  in a ,greek university city4 ,such    
assertions appear very strange  to-day4 
,recent philological investigation of   
the ,pauline ,epistles  has proved that 
the author uses the ,greek language in  
such masterly  fashion that he must have
 become familiar with it very early in  
life2 the language of the ,epistles is  
certainly no ,jewish-,greek  jargon4    
,with regard to the origin of the ideas1
 also1 the tendency  of recent criticism

 is directly contrary to ,krenkel2      
,paulinism is  now often explained as   
being based either upon paganism or else
 upon  a ,hellenized ,judaism4 ,to such 
reconstructions it is a highly welcome  
piece of information when the ,book of  
,acts makes ,paul a native not  of      
,jerusalem but of ,tarsus4 ,the author  
of ,acts1 it is said1 is here           
preserving a bit of genuine tradition1  
which is the more trustworthy  because  
it runs counter to the tendency1 thought
 to be otherwise  in evidence in ,acts1 
which brings ,paul into the closest     
possible  relation to ,palestine4 ,thus1
 whether for good or for bad reasons1   
the birth of ,paul in ,tarsus is now    
universally accepted1 and does  not     
require defense4      #ag ,krenkel1     
,beitrge zur ,aufhellung der ,geschichte
 und der ,briefe    des ,apostels       
,paulus1 #ahij1 pp4 #a-ag4    ,a very   
interesting tradition preserved by      
,jerome does indeed make  ,paul a native
 of ,gischala in ,galilee2 but no one   

to-day would be  inclined to follow     
,krenkel in giving credence to ,jerome  
rather  than to ,acts4 ,the ,gischala   
tradition does not look like a pure     
fiction1 but it is evident that ,jerome 
has at any rate exercised  his peculiar 
talent for bringing things into         
confusion4 ,zahn#ah  has suggested1 with
 considerable plausibility1 that the    
shorter  reference to ,gischala in the  
treatise ,de viris illustribus#ai is  a 
confused abridgment of the longer       
reference in the ,commentary on         
,philemon4#bj ,the latter passage       
asserts not that ,paul himself but  only
 that the parents of ,paul came from    
,gischala4 ,that assertion may  possibly
 be correct4 ,it would explain the      
,aramaic and ,palestinian  tradition    
which undoubtedly was preserved in the  
boyhood home of  ,paul4      #ah        
,einleitung in das ,neue ,testament1    
#cte ,aufl41 i1 #aijf1 pp4    #dh-ej    
7,english ,translation1 ,introduction to
 the ,new ,testament1 #bnd    ed41      

#aiji1 i1 pp4 #fh-gj74      #ai ,de vir4
 ill4 #e 7ed4 ,vall4 ii1 #hcf74      #bj
 ,comm4 in ,philem4 #bc 7ed4 ,vall4 vii1
 #gfb74    ,tarsus was an important     
city4 ,its commercial importance1 though
  of course inferior to that of places  
like ,antioch or ,corinth1 was          
considerable2 and it was also well known
 as a center of intellectual  life4     
,although the dramatic possibilities of 
representing the  future ,christian     
missionary growing up unknown under the 
shadow of  a ,greek university may      
sometimes have led to an exaggeration of
 the  academic fame of ,tarsus1 still it
 remains true that ,tarsus was a  real  
university city1 and could boast of     
great names like that of  ,athenodorus1 
the ,stoic philosopher1 and others4 ,the
 life of ,tarsus  has recently been made
 the subject of two elaborate           
monographs1  by ,ramsay#ba and by       
,bhlig1#bb who have collected a mass of 
information about the birthplace of     
,paul4 ,the nature of the pagan         

religious atmosphere which surrounded   
the future apostle is of  peculiar      
interest2 but the amount of direct      
information which has  come down to us  
should not be exaggerated4      #ba ,the
 ,cities of ,st4 ,paul1 #aijh1 pp4      
#he-bdd4      #bb ,die ,geisteskultur   
von ,tarsos1 #aiac4    ,the social      
position of ,paul's family in ,tarsus   
must not be regarded  as very humble2   
for according to the ,book of ,acts not 
only ,paul  himself1 but his father     
before him1 possessed the ,roman        
citizenship1  which in the provinces was
 still in the first century a highly    
prized privilege from which the great   
masses of the people were  excluded4    
,the ,roman citizenship of ,paul is not 
attested by the  ,pauline ,epistles1 but
 the representation of ,acts is at this 
point  universally1 or almost           
universally1 accepted4 ,only one        
objection  might be urged against it4   
,if ,paul was a ,roman citizen1 how     
could he  have been subjected three     

times to the ,roman punishment of       
beating  with rods 7#b ,cor4 xi4 #be71  
from which citizens were exempted by    
law8 ,the difficulty is not insuperable4
 ,paul may on some occasions  have been 
unwilling to appeal to a privilege which
 separated  him from his ,jewish        
countrymen2 or he may have wanted to    
avoid  the delay which an appeal to his 
privilege1 with the subsequent          
investigation and trial1 might have     
caused4 ,at any rate1 the  difficulty1  
whether easily removable or not1 is     
quite inadequate  to overthrow the      
abundant evidence for the fact of       
,paul's ,roman  citizenship4 ,that fact 
is absolutely necessary to account for  
the  entire representation which the    
,book of ,acts gives of the journey  of 
,paul as a prisoner to ,rome1 which     
representation1 it will be  remembered1 
is contained in the we-sections4 ,the   
whole account of  the relation between  
,paul and ,roman authorities1 which is  
contained  in the ,pauline ,epistles1   

the ,book of ,acts1 and trustworthy     
,christian  tradition1 is explicable    
only if ,paul possessed the rights of   
citizenship4#bc      #bc ,compare       
,mommsen1 ,die ,rechtsverhltnisse des   
,apostels ,paulus1    in ,zeitschrift fr
 die neutestamentliche ,wissenschaft1   
ii1 #aija1    pp4 #hh-if4    ,birth in a
 ,greek university city and ,roman      
citizenship constitute  the two facts   
which bring ,paul into early connection 
with the larger  ,gentile world of his  
day4 ,other facts1 equally              
well-attested1  separate him just as    
clearly from the ,gentile world and     
represent  him as being from childhood a
 strict ,jew4 ,these facts might have   
been called in question1 in view of the 
present tendency of  criticism1 if they 
had been attested only by the ,book of  
,acts4 ,but  fortunately it is just     
these facts which are attested also by  
the  epistles of ,paul4    ,in #b ,cor4 
xi4 #bb1 ,paul is declared to be a      
,hebrew1 and in ,phil4  iii4 #e he      

appears as a ,hebrew of ,hebrews4 ,the  
word ,hebrew  in these passages cannot  
indicate merely ,israelitish descent or 
general adherence to the ,jews'         
religion4 ,if it did so it would be a   
meaningless repetition of the other     
terms used in the same passages4        
,obviously it is used in some narrower  
sense4 ,the key to its meaning  is found
 in ,acts vi4 #a1 where1 within         
,judaism1 the ,hellenists  are          
distinguished from the ,hebrews1 the    
,hellenists being the  ,jews of the     
,dispersion who spoke ,greek1 and the   
,hebrews the ,jews  of ,palestine who   
spoke ,aramaic4 ,in ,phil4 iii4 #e1     
therefore1 ,paul  declares that he was  
an ,aramaic-speaking ,jew and descended 
from  ,aramaic-speaking ,jews2 ,aramaic 
was used in his boyhood home1 and the   
,palestinian tradition was preserved4   
,this testimony is not contrary  to what
 was said above about ,paul's use of the
 ,greek language--not  improbably ,paul 
used both ,aramaic and ,greek in        

childhood--but it  does contradict all  
those modern representations which make 
,paul  fundamentally a ,jew of the      
,dispersion4 ,though he was born in     
,tarsus1  he was1 in the essential      
character of his family tradition1 a    
,jew of  ,palestine4    ,even more      
important is the assertion1 found in the
 same verse  in ,philippians1 that ,paul
 was as touching the law a ,pharisee4   
,conceivably1 indeed1 it might be argued
 that his ,pharisaism was not  derived  
from his boyhood home1 but was acquired 
later4 ,but surely  it requires no      
excessively favorable estimate of ,acts 
to give  credence to the assertion in   
,acts xxiii4 #f that ,paul was not only 
a  ,pharisee but the son of ,pharisees2 
and it is exceedingly unlikely  that    
this phrase refers1 as ,lightfoot#bd    
suggested1 to teachers  rather than to  
ancestors4 ,for when ,paul says in ,gal4
 i4 #ad that he  advanced in the ,jews' 
religion beyond many of his             
contemporaries1  being more exceedingly 

zealous for his paternal traditions1 it 
is surely natural1 whatever             
interpretation may be given to the  word
 paternal1 to find a reference to the   
,pharisaic traditions  cultivated in his
 boyhood home4      #bd ,on ,phil4 iii4 
#e4    ,there is not the slightest      
evidence1 therefore1 for supposing that 
,paul spent his early years in an       
atmosphere of liberal ,judaism--a       
,judaism really though unconsciously    
hospitable to pagan notions and         
predisposed to relax the strict         
requirements of the ,law and break  down
 the barrier that separated ,israel from
 the ,gentile world4  ,whether such a   
liberal ,judaism even existed in ,tarsus
 we do not  know4 ,at any rate1 if it   
did exist1 the household of ,paul's     
father  was not in sympathy with it4    
,surely the definite testimony of ,paul 
himself is here worth more than all     
modern conjectures4 ,and ,paul  himself 
declares that he was in language and in 
spirit a ,jew of  ,palestine rather than

 of the ,dispersion1 and as touching the
 ,law a  ,pharisee4    ,according to the
 ,book of ,acts1 ,paul went at an early 
age to  ,jerusalem1 received instruction
 there from ,gamaliel1 the famous       
rabbi1 and finally1 just before his     
conversion1 persecuted the  ,jerusalem  
,church 7,acts xxii4 #c2 vii4 #eh-viii4 
#a2 ix4 #a1 etc474 ,in  recent years1   
this entire representation has been     
questioned4 ,it has  been maintained by 
,mommsen1#be ,bousset#bf1 ,heitmller1#bg
 and  ,loisy#bh that ,paul never was in 
,jerusalem before his conversion4  ,that
 he persecuted the ,church is1 of       
course1 attested unequivocally  by his  
own ,epistles1 but the persecution1 it  
is said1 really took  place only in such
 cities as ,damascus1 and not at all in 
,palestine4      #be ,op4 cit41 pp4     
#he;f4      #bf ,kyrios ,christos1      
#aiac1 p4 #ib4 ,bousset's doubt with    
regard to    the early ,jerusalem       
residence of ,paul extended1 explicitly 
at least1    only to the persecution in 

,jerusalem1 and it was a doubt merely1  
not    a positive denial4 ,in his       
supplementary work he has admitted that 
his doubt was unjustified 7,jesus der   
,herr1 #aiaf1 p4 #ca74      #bg ,zum    
,problem ,paulus und ,jesus1 in         
,zeitschrift fr die    neutestamentliche
 ,wissenschaft1 xiii1 #aiab1 pp4        
#cbj-ccg4      #bh ,l'pitre aux         
,galates1 #aiaf1 pp4 #fh-gc2 ,les       
mystres paens    et le mystre chrtien1  
#aiai1 pp4 #cag-cbj4    ,this           
elimination of the early residence of   
,paul in ,jerusalem is no  mere         
by-product of a generally skeptical     
attitude toward the ,book  of ,acts1 but
 is important for the entire            
reconstruction of early  ,christian     
history which ,bousset and ,heitmller   
and ,loisy propose2  it is made to      
assist in explaining the origin of the  
,pauline  ,christology4 ,paul regarded  
,jesus ,christ as a supernatural person1
  come to earth for the redemption of   
men2 and toward this divine  ,christ he 

assumed a distinctly religious attitude4
 ,how could he  have formed such a      
conception of a human being who had died
 but a  few years before8 ,if he had    
been separated from ,jesus by several   
generations1 so that the nimbus of      
distance and mystery would have  had    
time to form about the figure of the    
,galilean prophet1 then his  lofty      
conception of ,jesus might be explained4
 ,but as a matter of  fact he was       
actually a contemporary of the ,jesus   
whose simple human  traits he obscured4 
,how could the smell of earth have been 
so  completely removed from the figure  
of the ,galilean teacher that ,he  could
 actually be regarded by one of ,his    
contemporaries as a divine  ,redeemer8  
,the question could perhaps be more     
easily answered if  ,paul1 before his   
lofty conception of ,christ was fully   
formed1 never  came into any connection 
with those who had seen ,jesus subject  
to  the petty limitations of human life4
 ,thus the elimination of the  early    

,jerusalem residence of ,paul1 by       
putting a geographical if  not a        
temporal gulf between ,jesus and ,paul1 
is thought to make the  formation of the
 ,pauline ,christology more             
comprehensible4 ,peter and  the original
 disciples1 it is thought1 never could  
have separated  ,jesus so completely    
from the limitations of ordinary        
humanity2 the  simple memory of         
,galilean days would in their case have 
been an  effective barrier against      
,christological speculation4 ,but ,paul 
was  subject to no such limitation2     
having lived far away from ,palestine1  
in the company1 for the most part1 of   
those who like himself had  never seen  
,jesus1 he was free to transpose to the 
,galilean teacher  attributes which to  
those who had known the real ,jesus     
would have  seemed excessive or absurd4 
,before examining the grounds upon which
 this elimination of ,paul's  early     
,jerusalem residence is based1 it may   
first be observed that  even such heroic

 measures do not really bring about the 
desired  result2 even this radical      
rewriting of the story of ,paul's       
boyhood  and youth will not serve to    
explain on naturalistic principles the  
origin of the ,pauline ,christology4    
,even if before his conversion  ,paul   
got no nearer to ,jerusalem than        
,damascus1 it still remains  true that  
after his conversion he conferred with  
,peter and lived in  more or less       
extended intercourse with ,palestinian  
disciples4 ,the  total lack of any      
evidence of a conflict between the      
,christology of  ,paul and the views of 
those who had walked and talked with    
,jesus of  ,nazareth remains1 for any   
naturalistic reconstruction1 a puzzling 
fact4 ,even without the early ,jerusalem
 residence1 ,paul remains too  near to  
,jesus both temporally and              
geographically to have formed  a        
conception of ,him entirely without     
reference to the historical  person4    
,even with their radical treatment of   

the ,book of ,acts1  therefore1 ,bousset
 and ,heitmller have not succeeded at   
all in  explaining how the ,pauline     
,christology ever came to be attached to
  the ,galilean prophet4    ,but is the 
elimination of the early ,jerusalem     
residence of ,paul  historically        
justifiable8 ,mere congruity with a     
plausible theory  of development will   
not serve to justify it4 ,for the       
,jerusalem  residence is strongly       
attested by the ,book of ,acts4 ,the    
testimony  of ,acts can no longer be    
ruled out except for very weighty       
reasons2  the history of recent         
criticism has on the whole exhibited the
  rise of a more and more favorable     
estimate of the book4 ,and in the  case 
of the early ,jerusalem residence of    
,paul the testimony is so  insistent and
 so closely connected with lifelike     
details that the  discrediting of it    
involves an exceedingly radical         
skepticism4 ,the  presence of ,paul at  
the stoning of ,stephen is narrated in  

the ,book  of ,acts in a concrete way   
which bears every mark of               
trustworthiness2  the connection of     
,paul with ,gamaliel is what might have 
been  expected in view of the           
self-testimony of the apostle2 the      
account  of ,paul's vision in the       
,temple 7,acts xxii4 #ag-ba7 is based1  
in a  manner which is psychologically   
very natural1 upon the fact of  ,paul's 
persecuting activity in ,jerusalem2 the 
presence of ,paul's  sister's son in    
,jerusalem1 attested in a part of the   
narrative of  which the essential       
historicity must be universally admitted
 7,acts  xxiii4 #af-bb71 suggests that  
family connections may have facilitated 
,paul's residence in the city4 ,finally1
 the geographical details of  the three 
narratives of the conversion1 which     
place the event on a  journey of ,paul  
from ,jerusalem to ,damascus1 certainly 
look as though  they were founded upon  
genuine tradition4 ,one of the          
details--the  place of the conversion   

itself--is confirmed in a purely        
incidental  way by the ,epistle to the  
,galatians1 and the reader has the      
impression that if ,paul had happened to
 introduce other details  in the        
,epistles the rest of the narrative in  
,acts would have been  similarly        
confirmed4 ,except for ,paul's          
incidental reference to  ,damascus in   
,gal4 i4 #ag1 the conversion might have 
been put by  ,heitmller and others in a 
place even more conveniently remote than
  ,damascus from the scene of ,jesus'   
earthly labors4 ,but the incidental     
confirmation of ,acts at this point     
raises a distinct presumption in  favor 
of the account as a whole4 ,the main    
trend of modern criticism  has been     
favorable on the whole to the tradition 
embodied in the  accounts of the        
conversion2 it is a very extreme form of
 skepticism  which rejects the whole    
framework of the tradition by           
eliminating  the journey from ,jerusalem
 to ,damascus4    ,enough has been said 

to show that the early ,jerusalem       
residence of  ,paul stood absolutely    
firm in the tradition used by the author
 of  ,acts2 the author has taken it as a
 matter of course and woven it in  with 
his narrative at many points4 ,such a   
tradition certainly cannot  be lightly  
rejected2 the burden of proof clearly   
rests upon those  who would deny its    
truthworthiness4    ,the only definite  
proof which is forthcoming is found in  
,gal4 i4  #bb1 where ,paul says that    
after his departure for ,syria and      
,cilicia1  three years after his        
conversion1 he was unknown by face to   
the  churches of ,juda which are in     
,christ4 ,if he had engaged in active   
persecution of those churches1 it is    
argued1 how could he have been          
personally unknown to them8    ,by this 
argument a tremendous weight is hung    
upon one verse4 ,and1  rightly          
interpreted1 the verse will not bear the
 weight at all4 ,in  ,gal4 i4 #bb1 ,paul
 is not speaking so much of what took   

place before  the departure for ,syria  
and ,cilicia1 as of the condition which 
prevailed at the time of that departure 
and during the immediately  ensuing     
period2 he is simply drawing attention  
to the significance  for his argument of
 the departure from ,jerusalem4         
,certainly he would  not have been able 
to speak as he does if before he left   
,jerusalem  he had had extended         
intercourse with the ,judan churches1   
but when  he says that the knowledge of 
the ,judan churches about him in the    
period just succeeding his departure    
from ,jerusalem was a hearsay  knowledge
 merely1 it would have been pedantic for
 him to think about  the question       
whether some of the members of those    
churches had or  had not seen him years 
before as a persecutor4    ,furthermore1
 it is by no means clear that the word  
,juda in ,gal4  i4 #bb includes         
,jerusalem at all4 ,in ,mark iii4 #g1   
#h1 for example1  ,jerusalem is clearly 
not included in ,juda1 but is           

distinguished  from it2 ,juda means the 
country outside of the capital4 ,it may 
well be so also in ,gal4 i4 #bb2 and if 
so1 then the verse does not  exclude a  
personal acquaintance of ,paul with the 
,jerusalem ,church4  ,but even if ,juda 
is not used so as to exclude the        
capital1  still ,paul's words would be  
natural enough4 ,that the ,jerusalem    
,church formed an exception to the      
general assertion was suggested  by the 
account of the visit in ,jerusalem      
immediately preceding1  and was probably
 well known to his ,galatian readers4   
,all that ,paul  means is that he went  
away to ,syria and ,cilicia without     
becoming  acquainted generally with the 
churches of ,juda4 ,it is indeed often  
said that since the whole point of      
,paul's argument in ,galatians  was to  
show his lack of contact with the       
pillars of the ,jerusalem  ,church1 his 
acquaintance or lack of acquaintance    
with the churches  of ,juda outside of  
,jerusalem was unworthy of mention1 so  

that he  must at least be including     
,jerusalem when he speaks of ,juda4 ,but
  this argument is not decisive4 ,if1 as
 is altogether probable1 the  apostles  
except ,peter were out of the city at   
the time of ,paul's  visit1 and were    
engaging in missionary work in ,judan   
churches1 then  acquaintance with the   
,judan churches would have meant        
intercourse  with the apostles1 so that 
it was very much to the point for ,paul 
to deny that he had had such            
acquaintance4 ,of course1 this whole    
argument against the early ,jerusalem   
residence of ,paul1 based on  ,gal4 i4  
#bb1 involves a rejection of the account
 which the ,book of  ,acts gives of the 
visit of ,paul to ,jerusalem three years
 after his  conversion4 ,if ,gal4 i4 #bb
 means that ,paul was unknown by sight  
to  the ,jerusalem ,church1 then he     
could not have gone in and out among    
the disciples at ,jerusalem as ,acts ix4
 #bh represents1 but must  have been in 
strict hiding when he was in the city4  

,such is the  account of the matter     
which is widely prevalent in recent     
years4  ,not even so much correction of 
,acts is at all required by a correct   
understanding of ,gal4 i4 #bb4 ,but it  
is a still more unjustifiable  use of   
that verse when it is made to exclude   
even the persecuting  activity of ,paul 
in ,jerusalem4    ,if1 however1 the     
words of ,galatians are really to be    
taken in the  strictest and most literal
 sense1 what is to be done with ,gal4   
i4 #bc1 where 7immediately after the    
words which have just been  discussed7  
,paul says that the churches of ,juda   
were receiving  the report1 ,he that    
persecuted us formerly is now preaching 
as  a gospel the faith which formerly he
 laid waste8 ,what is meant  by the     
pronoun us in this verse8 ,conceivably  
it might be taken  in a broad sense1 as 
referring to all disciples wherever     
found2  conceivably1 therefore1 the     
persecution referred to by the ,judan   
disciples might be persecution of their 

brethren in the faith in  ,tarsus or    
,damascus4 ,but that is not the kind of 
interpretation  which has just been     
applied to the preceding verse1 and upon
 which  such a vast structure has been  
reared4 ,it may well be urged against   
,heitmller and those like him that if   
,paul's words are to be taken  so       
strictly in one verse they should be    
taken in the same way in the  other2 if 
the ,juda and unknown by face of verse  
#bb are to be  taken so strictly1 then  
the us of verse #bc should also be taken
  strictly1 and in that case ,paul is   
made to contradict himself1 which  of   
course is absurd4 ,verse #bc certainly  
does not fully confirm the              
representation of ,acts about the       
persecuting activity of ,paul in  ,juda1
 but at any rate it tends to confirm    
that representation at  least as        
strongly as verse #bb tends to discredit
 it4#bi      #bi ,compare ,wellhausen1  
,kritische ,analyse der                 
,apostelgeschichte1    #aiad1 p4 #af4   

,thus the early ,jerusalem residence of 
,paul is strongly attested  by the ,book
 of ,acts1 and is thoroughly in harmony 
with everything  that ,paul says about  
his ,pharisaic past4 ,it is not         
surprising that  ,bousset has now       
receded from his original position and  
admits  that ,paul was in ,jerusalem    
before his conversion and engaged in    
persecution of the ,jerusalem ,church4  
,that admission does not necessarily    
carry with it an acceptance of  all that
 the ,book of ,acts says about the      
,jerusalem period in ,paul's  life1     
particularly all that it says about his 
having been a disciple  of ,gamaliel4   
,but the decisive point has been gained4
 ,if the entire  account of the early   
,jerusalem residence of ,paul is not    
ruled out  by the testimony of his own  
,epistles1 then there is at least no    
decisive objection against the testimony
 of ,acts with regard to the  details4  
,certainly the common opinion to the    
effect that ,paul went  to ,jerusalem to

 receive rabbinical training is         
admirably in accord  with everything    
that he says in his ,epistles about his 
zeal for the  ,law4 ,it is also in      
accord with his habits of thought and   
expression1  which were transformed and 
glorified1 rather than destroyed1 by    
his ,christian experience4 ,the decision
 about every detail of  course depends  
ultimately upon the particular          
conclusion which the  investigator may  
have reached with regard to the ,book of
 ,acts4 ,if  that book was written by a 
companion of ,paul--an opinion which is 
gaining ground even in circles which    
were formerly hostile--then  there is   
every reason to suppose that ,paul was  
brought up in  ,jerusalem at the feet of
 ,gamaliel 7,acts xxii4 #c74 ,some      
important  questions indeed still remain
 unanswered1 even with full acceptance  
of the ,lucan testimony4 ,it can never  
be determined1 for example1 at  exactly 
what age ,paul went to ,jerusalem4 ,the 
words1 brought up in  this city1 in     

,acts xxii4 #c might seem to suggest    
that ,paul went to  ,jerusalem in early 
childhood1 in which case his birthplace 
would  be of comparatively little       
importance in his preparation for his   
lifework1 and all the elaborate         
investigations of ,tarsus1 so far as    
they are intended to shed light upon the
 environment of the apostle  in his     
formative years1 would become valueless4
 ,but the ,greek word  brought up or    
nourished might be used figuratively in 
a somewhat  flexible way2 it remains1   
therefore1 perfectly possible that      
,paul's  ,jerusalem training began1 not 
in childhood1 but in early youth4  ,at  
any rate1 an early residence in         
,jerusalem is not excluded by  the      
masterly way in which the apostle uses  
the ,greek language4 ,it  must always be
 remembered that ,palestine in the first
 century was  a bilingual country2#cj   
the presence of hosts of ,greek-speaking
  ,jews even in ,jerusalem is amply     
attested1 for example1 by the early     

chapters of ,acts4 ,moreover1 even after
 ,paul's ,jerusalem studies had  begun1 
his connection with ,tarsus need not    
have been broken off4 ,the  distance    
between the two cities was considerable 
7some four or five  hundred miles71 but 
travel in those days was safe and easy4 
,a period  of training in ,jerusalem may
 have been followed by a long residence 
at ,tarsus4      #cj ,see ,zahn1        
,einleitung in das ,neue ,testament1    
#cte ,aufl41 i1    #aijf1 pp4 #bd-cb1   
#ci-dg 7,english ,translation1          
,introduction to the    ,new ,testament1
 #bnd ,ed41 #aiag1 i1 pp4 #cd-df1       
#eg-ff74    ,at this point1 an          
interesting question arises1 which1     
however1 can  never be answered with any
 certainty4 ,did ,paul ever see ,jesus  
before  the crucifixion8 ,in the light  
of what has just been established  about
 the outline of ,paul's life1 an        
affirmative answer might seem  to be    
natural4 ,paul was in ,jerusalem both   
before and after the  public ministry of

 ,jesus--before it when he was being    
brought up  in ,jerusalem1 and after it 
when he was engaged in persecution of   
the  ,jerusalem ,church4 ,where was he  
during the interval8 ,where was he on   
those occasions when ,jesus visited     
,jerusalem--especially at the time  of  
that last ,passover8 ,if he was in      
,jerusalem1 it seems probable  that he  
would have seen the great prophet1 whose
 coming caused such  a stir among the   
people4 ,and that he was in the city at 
,passover  time would seem natural in   
view of his devotion to the ,law4 ,but  
the  matter is by no means certain4 ,he 
may have returned to ,tarsus1 in  the   
manner which has just been suggested4   
,the question could only be decided on  
the basis of actual testimony  either in
 ,acts or in the ,epistles4 ,one verse  
has often been thought  to provide such 
testimony4 ,in #b ,cor4 v4 #af1 ,paul   
says1 ,even if  we have known ,christ   
after the flesh1 yet now we know him so 
no  longer4 ,knowledge of ,christ after 

the flesh can only mean1 it is  said1   
knowledge of ,him by the ordinary use of
 the senses1 in the  manner in which one
 man in ordinary human intercourse knows
 another4  ,that kind of knowledge1     
,paul says1 has ceased to have          
significance  for the ,christian in his 
relation to other men2 it has also      
ceased  to have significance for him in 
his relation to ,christ4 ,but it is     
that kind of knowledge which ,paul seems
 to predicate of himself1  as having    
existed in a previous period of his     
life4 ,he does not  use the unreal form 
of condition2 he does not say1 ,even if 
we had  known ,christ after the flesh   
7though as a matter of fact we never    
knew ,him so at all71 yet now we should 
know ,him so no longer4  ,apparently1   
then1 when he says if he means although2
 he means to  say1 ,although we have    
known ,christ after the flesh1 yet now  
we know  ,him so no longer4 ,the        
knowledge of ,christ after the flesh is 
thus  put as an actual fact in ,paul's  

experience1 and that can only mean  that
 he knew ,him in the way in which ,his  
contemporaries knew ,him  in ,galilee   
and in ,jerusalem1 a way which in       
itself1 ,paul says1 was  altogether     
without spiritual significance4    ,one 
objection to this interpretation of the 
passage is that it  proves too much4 ,if
 it means anything1 it means that ,paul 
had  extended personal acquaintance with
 ,jesus before the crucifixion2  for if 
,paul merely saw ,him for a few         
moments--for example1 when the  crowds  
were surging about ,him at the time of  
the last ,passover--he  could hardly be 
said to have known ,him4 ,but1 for      
obvious reasons1  any extended          
intercourse between ,paul and ,jesus in 
,palestine is  exceedingly improbable4  
,it is natural1 therefore1 to look for  
some  other interpretation4    ,other   
interpretations undoubtedly are         
possible4 ,some of the  interpretations 
that have been proposed must indeed be  
eliminated4  ,for example1 ,paul cannot 

possibly be contrasting a former        
immature  stage of his ,christian       
experience with the present mature      
stage2  he cannot possibly mean1 ,even  
if in the first period after my         
conversion ,i had a low view of ,christ1
 which made of ,him merely  the son of  
,david and the ,jewish ,messiah1 yet now
 ,i have come to a  higher conception of
 ,his divine nature4 ,for the whole     
point of  the passage is found in the   
sharp break which comes in a man's      
experience when he appropriates the     
death and resurrection of  ,christ4 ,any
 consciousness of a subsequent          
revolution in the thinking  of the      
,christian is not only unsupported      
anywhere in the ,pauline  ,epistles1 but
 is absolutely excluded by the present  
passage4 ,another  interpretation also  
must be eliminated4 ,paul cannot        
possibly be  contrasting his            
pre-,christian notions about the        
,messiah with the  higher knowledge     
which came to him with his conversion2  

he cannot  possibly mean1 ,even if      
before ,i knew the fulfillment of the   
,messianic promise ,i cherished carnal  
notions of what the ,messiah  was to be1
 even if ,i thought of ,him merely as an
 earthly ruler who  was to conquer the  
enemies of ,israel1 yet now ,i have come
 to have a  loftier1 more spiritual     
conception of ,him4 ,for the word       
,christ1  especially without the        
article1 can hardly here be anything    
other than a proper name1 and must refer
 not to the conception  of ,messiahship 
but to the concrete person of ,jesus4   
,but another  interpretation remains4   
,the key to it is found in the flexible 
use  of the first person plural in the  
,pauline ,epistles4 ,undoubtedly1 the   
we of the whole passage in which #b     
,cor4 v4 #af is contained refers        
primarily to ,paul himself4 ,but1       
especially in #b ,cor4 v4 #af1 it may   
include also all true ambassadors for   
,christ whose principles are  the same  
as ,paul's4 ,among such true ambassadors

 there were no doubt  to be found some  
who had known ,christ by way of ordinary
 intercourse  in ,palestine4 ,but1 says 
,paul1 even if some of us have known    
,christ in that way1 we know him so no  
longer4 ,this interpretation  is        
linguistically more satisfactory1       
perhaps1 than that which  explains the  
sentence as simply a more vivid way of  
presenting a  condition contrary to     
fact4 ,granted1 ,paul would say         
according to  this interpretation1 even 
that we have known ,christ according to 
the flesh 7which as a matter of fact we 
have not71 yet now we know  him so no   
longer4 ,but our interpretation really  
amounts to almost  the same thing so far
 as ,paul is concerned4 ,at any rate1   
the passage  is not so clear as to      
justify any certain conclusions about   
,paul's  life in ,palestine2 it does not
 clearly imply any acquaintance of      
,paul with ,jesus before the passion4   
,if such acquaintance is to be          
established1 therefore1 it must be      

established on the basis of other       
evidence4 ,j4 ,weiss#ca seeks to        
establish it by the very fact of ,paul's
 conversion4 ,paul1 ,weiss  believes1   
saw a vision of the risen ,christ4 ,how 
did he know that the  figure which      
appeared to him in the vision was       
,jesus8 ,why did he not  think1 for     
example1 merely that it was the         
,messiah1 who according  to one strain  
of ,jewish ,messianic expectation was   
already existent  in heaven8 ,apparently
 he recognized the person who appeared  
to him  as ,jesus of ,nazareth4 ,but how
 could he have recognized ,him as ,jesus
  unless he had seen ,jesus before8     
#ca ,paulus und ,jesus1 #aiji1 pp4 #bb1 
#bc4 ,compare ,ramsay1 ,the    ,teaching
 of ,paul in ,terms of the ,present     
,day1 #aiad1 pp4 #ba-cj4    ,this       
argument depends1 of course1 altogether 
upon the naturalistic  conception of the
 conversion of ,paul1 which regards the 
experience  as an hallucination4 ,in the
 account of the conversion given in the 

,book of ,acts1 on the contrary1 it is  
distinctly said that far from           
recognizing the person who appeared to  
him1 ,paul was obliged to ask  the      
question1 ,who art thou1 ,lord8 and then
 received the answer1  ,i am ,jesus4    
,such a conversation between ,paul and  
the ,one who  appeared to him is        
perfectly possible if there was a real  
appearance  of the risen ,christ1 but it
 exceeds the ordinary limits of         
hallucinations4 ,weiss has therefore    
merely pointed out an additional        
psychological difficulty in explaining  
the experience of ,paul as  an          
hallucination1 a difficulty which1 on   
naturalistic principles1  may have to be
 removed by the assumption that ,paul   
had seen ,jesus  before the passion4    
,but if ,jesus really appeared to ,paul 
in such a  way as to be able to answer  
his questions1 then it is not necessary 
to suppose that ,paul recognized ,him4  
,the failure of ,paul to  recognize     
,jesus 7according to the narrative in   

,acts7 does not indeed  positively      
exclude such previous acquaintance2 the 
two disciples on  the road to ,emmaus1  
for example1 also failed to recognize   
the ,lord1  though they had been        
acquainted with ,him before4 ,but1 at   
any rate1  if the supernaturalistic view
 of ,paul's conversion be accepted1  the
 experience sheds no light whatever upon
 any previous personal  acquaintance    
with ,jesus4    ,thus there is no clear 
evidence for supposing that ,paul saw   
,jesus  before the passion4 ,at the same
 time there is no evidence to the       
contrary1 except the evidence that is to
 be found in the silence of  the        
,epistles4    ,the argument from        
silence1 precarious as it is1 must here 
be  allowed a certain amount of weight4 
,if ,paul had seen ,jesus before  the   
crucifixion1 would not so important a   
fact have been mentioned  somewhere in  
the ,epistles8 ,the matter is by no     
means absolutely  clear2 a brief glimpse
 of ,jesus in the days of ,his flesh    

would  perhaps not have seemed so       
important to ,paul1 in view of the      
richer  knowledge which came afterwards1
 as it would seem to us4 ,the silence   
of the ,epistles does1 however1 render  
improbable any extended  contact between
 ,paul and ,jesus1 particularly any     
active opposition  of the youthful ,paul
 toward ,jesus4 ,paul was deeply        
penitent for  having persecuted the     
,church2 if he had committed the more   
terrible  sin of having helped bring the
 ,lord ,himself to the shameful cross1  
the fact would naturally have appeared  
in his expressions of  penitence4 ,even 
if ,paul did see ,jesus in ,palestine1  
then1 it is  highly improbable that he  
was one of those who cried out to       
,pilate1  ,crucify him1 crucify him6    
,one thing1 however1 is certain4 ,if    
,paul never saw ,jesus in  ,palestine1  
he certainly heard about ,him4 ,the     
ministry of ,jesus  caused considerable 
stir both in ,galilee and in ,jerusalem4
 ,these  things were not done in a      

corner4 ,the appearance of ,jesus at the
  last ,passover aroused the passions of
 the multitude1 and evidently  caused   
the deepest concern to the authorities4 
,even one who was  indifferent to the   
whole matter could hardly have helped   
learning  something of the content of   
,jesus' teaching1 and the main outline  
of the story of ,his death4 ,but ,paul1 
at least at a time only a very  few     
years after the crucifixion1 was not    
indifferent2 for he was an  active      
persecutor4 ,if he was in ,palestine at 
all during the previous  period1 his    
interest probably began then4 ,the      
outlines of ,jesus'  life and death were
 known to friend and foe alike1 and     
certainly  were not unknown to ,paul    
before his conversion1 at the time when 
he  was persecuting the ,church4 ,it is 
only a woeful lack of historical        
imagination which can attribute to      
,paul1 even before his conversion1  a   
total ignorance of the earthly life of  
,jesus4    ,the opposite error1 however1

 is even more serious4 ,if ,paul before 
his conversion was not totally ignorant 
of ,jesus1 on the other  hand his       
knowledge only increased his opposition 
to ,jesus and  ,jesus' followers4 ,it is
 not true that before the conversion    
,paul  was gradually coming nearer to   
,christianity4 ,against any such        
supposition stands the explicit         
testimony of the ,epistles4    ,despite 
that testimony1 various attempts have   
been made to trace  a psychological     
development in ,paul which could have   
led to the  conversion4 ,paul was       
converted through a vision of the risen 
,christ4 ,according to the              
supernaturalistic view that vision was a
  vision1 not in any specialized meaning
 of the word1 but in its  original      
etymological meaning2 ,paul actually saw
 the risen ,lord4  ,according to the    
modern naturalistic view1 which rejects 
any direct  creative interposition of   
,god in the course of nature1 different 
in  kind from ,his works of providence1 

the vision was produced by the  internal
 condition of the subject1 accompanied  
perhaps by favorable  conditions        
without--the heat of the sun or a       
thunder storm or the  like4 ,but was the
 condition of the subject1 in the case  
of ,paul1  really favorable to a vision 
of the risen ,christ8 ,if the vision  of
 ,christ was an hallucination1 as it is 
held to be by modern  naturalistic      
historians1 how may the genesis of this 
pathological  experience be explained8  
,in the first place1 a certain basis for
 the experience is sought in  the       
physical organism of the subject4       
,according to the ,epistles1  it is     
said1 the apostle was subject to a      
recurrent malady2 this  malady is spoken
 of in #b ,cor4 xii4 #a-h in connection 
with visions  and revelations4 ,in ,gal4
 iv4 #ad1 where it is said that the     
,galatians did not spit out when the    
apostle was with them1 an  allusion is  
sometimes discovered to the ancient     
custom of spitting  to avoid contagion4 

,a combination of this passage with the 
one in  #b ,corinthians is thought to   
establish a diagnosis of epilepsy1 the  
effort being made to show that spitting 
out was particularly  prevalent in the  
case of that disease4 ,the visions then 
become an  additional symptom of the    
epileptic seizures4#cb      #cb ,see    
,krenkel1 ,beitrge zur ,aufhellung der  
,geschichte und der    ,briefe des      
,apostels ,paulus1 #ahij1 pp4 #dg-abe4  
,but the diagnosis rests upon totally   
insufficient data4 ,the visions  are not
 regarded in #b ,corinthians as part of 
the buffetings of  the angel of ,satan2 
on the contrary1 the two things are     
sharply  separated in ,paul's mind2 he  
rejoices in the visions1 but prays  the 
,lord that the buffetings may cease4 ,it
 is not even said that  the visions and 
the buffetings came close together2     
there is no  real basis for the view    
that the buffetings consisted in nervous
  exhaustion following the visions4 ,in 
,gal4 iv4 #ad1 the spitting  out is     

probably to be taken figuratively1 and  
the object is your  temptation in my    
flesh4 ,the meaning then is simply1 ,you
 did  not reject me or spue me out2 and 
there is no allusion to the  custom of  
spitting out for the purpose of avoiding
 contagion4 ,it  is unnecessary1        
therefore1 to examine the elaborate     
argument of  ,krenkel by which he sought
 to show that epilepsy was particularly 
the disease against which spitting was  
practised as a prophylactic  measure4   
,there is therefore absolutely no       
evidence to show that ,paul was an      
epileptic1 unless the very fact of his  
having visions be thought to  furnish   
such evidence4 ,but such a use of the   
visions prejudges the  great question at
 issue1 which concerns the objective    
validity of  ,paul's religious          
convictions4 ,furthermore1 the fact     
should always be  borne in mind that    
,paul distinguished the visions very    
sharply from  the experience which he   
had near ,damascus1 when he saw the     

,lord4 ,the  visions are spoken of in #b
 ,corinthians apparently with           
reluctance1  as something which         
concerned the apostle alone2 the        
,damascus  experience was part of the   
evidence for the resurrection of        
,christ1  and had a fundamental place in
 the apostle's missionary preaching4    
,all efforts to break down this         
distinction have failed4 ,the apostle   
regarded the ,damascus experience as    
unique--not a mystery like  the         
experiences which are mentioned in #b   
,corinthians1 but a plain1  palpable    
fact capable of being understood by all4
    ,but if the ,damascus experience is 
to be regarded as an  hallucination1 it 
is not sufficient to exhibit a basis for
 it in the  physical weakness of the    
apostle4 ,even if ,paul was             
constitutionally  predisposed to        
hallucinations1 the experience of this  
particular  hallucination must be shown 
to be possible4 ,the challenge has often
  been accepted by modern historians4   

,it is maintained that the  elements of 
,paul's new conviction must have been   
forming gradually  in his mind2 the     
,damascus experience1 it is said1 merely
 brought to  light what was really      
already present4 ,in this way1 the      
enormous  disparity between effect and  
cause is thought to be removed2 the     
untold benefits of ,paulinism are no    
longer to be regarded as due to  the    
fortunate chance of an hallucination1   
induced by the weakness  of the apostle 
and the heat of the desert sun1 but     
rather to a  spiritual development which
 the hallucination merely revealed4     
,thus the modern view of ,paul's        
conversion1 it is thought1 may face     
bravely the scorn of ,beyschlag1 who    
exclaimed1 when speaking of  the        
naturalistic explanation of ,paul's     
vision1 ,oh blessed drop of  blood 444  
which by pressing at the right moment   
upon the brain of  ,paul1 produced such 
a moral wonder4#cc ,the drop of blood1  
it is  said1 or whatever may have been  

the physical basis of the ,damascus     
experience1 did not produce the wonders 
of the ,pauline gospel2 it  merely      
brought into the sphere of consciousness
 a psychological  process which had     
really been going on before4      #cc   
,beyschlag1 ,die ,bekehrung des         
,apostels ,paulus1 in    ,theologische  
,studien und ,kritiken1 xxxvii1 #ahfd1  
p4 #bda4    ,the existence of such a    
psychological process1 by which the     
apostle  was coming nearer to ,christ1  
is sometimes thought to receive         
documentary support in one verse of the 
,new ,testament4 ,in ,acts xxvi4  #ad1  
the risen ,christ is represented as     
saying to ,paul1 ,it is hard  for thee  
to kick against the goads4 ,according to
 this verse1 it  is said1 ,paul had been
 resisting a better conviction1         
gradually  forming in his mind1 that the
 disciples might be right about ,jesus  
and he might be wrong2 that1 it is said1
 was the goad which was  really driving 
him4 ,he had indeed been resisting      

vigorously2 he  had been stifling his   
doubts by more and more feverish        
activity  in persecution4 ,but the      
resistance had not really brought him   
peace2 the goad was really there4 ,and  
at last1 near ,damascus1 the  resistance
 was overcome2 the subconscious         
conviction which had  brought tumult    
into his soul was at last allowed to    
come to the  surface and rule his       
conscious life4    ,at this point1 the  
historian is in grave danger of becoming
  untrue to his own critical principles4
 ,attention to the ,book of  ,acts1 it  
has been maintained1 is not to be       
allowed to color the  interpretation of 
the ,pauline ,epistles1 which are the   
primary  sources of information4 ,but   
here the procedure is reversed4 ,in the 
interests of a verse in ,acts1 standing1
 moreover1 in a context  which on       
naturalistic principles cannot be       
regarded as historical1  the clear      
testimony of the ,epistles is neglected4
 ,for ,paul was  certainly not conscious

 of any goad which before his conversion
 was  forcing him into the new faith2 he
 knows nothing of doubts which  assailed
 him during the period of his activity  
in persecution4 ,on  the contrary1 the  
very point of the passage in ,galatians1
 where  he alludes to his persecuting   
activity1 is the suddenness of his      
conversion4 ,far from gradually coming  
nearer to ,christ he was in  the very   
midst of his zeal for the ,law when     
,christ called him4  ,the purpose of the
 passage is to show that his gospel came
 to him  without human intermediation4  
,before the conversion1 he says1 there  
was of course no human intermediation1  
since he was an active  persecutor4 ,he 
could not have spoken in this way if    
before the  conversion he had already   
become half convinced that those whom he
  was persecuting were right4 ,moreover1
 throughout the ,epistles there  appears
 in the apostle not the slightest       
consciousness of his having  acted      
against better convictions when he      

persecuted the ,church4 ,in  #a ,tim4 i4
 #ac he distinctly says that he carried 
on the persecution  in ignorance2 and   
even if ,timothy be regarded as         
post-,pauline1 the  silence of the other
 epistles at least points in the same   
direction4  ,paul was deeply penitent   
for having persecuted the ,church of    
,god1  but apparently he did not lay to 
his charge the black sin of having      
carried on the persecution in the face  
of better convictions4 ,when  he laid   
the ,church waste he thought he was     
doing ,god service4 ,in the  very midst 
of his mad persecuting activity1 he     
says1 apart from any  teaching from     
men--apart1 we may certainly infer1 from
 any favorable  impressions formed in   
his mind--the ,lord appeared to him and 
gave  him his gospel4 ,paul stakes      
everything upon the evidential value of 
the appearance1 which was able suddenly 
to overcome an altogether  hostile      
attitude4 ,such is the self-testimony of
 the apostle4 ,it  rests as a serious   

weight upon all attempts at making the  
conversion  the result of a             
psychological process4    ,certainly the
 passage in ,acts will not help to bear 
the weight4  ,when the risen ,christ    
says to ,paul1 ,it is hard for thee to  
kick  against the goads1 ,he need not   
mean at all that the presence of  the   
goad had been known to ,paul before that
 hour4 ,the meaning may  be simply that 
the will of ,christ is resistless2 all  
opposition  is in vain1 the appointed   
hour of ,christ has arrived4 ,conscious 
opposition on the part of ,paul to a    
better conviction is certainly  not at  
all implied4 ,no doubt ,paul was really 
miserable when he was  a persecutor2 all
 activity contrary to the plan of       
,christ brings  misery4 ,but that he had
 the slightest inkling of the source of 
his  misery or even of the fact of it   
need not be supposed4 ,it is even       
possible that the hardness of resistance
 to the goad is to be  found only in the
 very moment of the conversion4 ,all    

resistance1  says the risen ,christ1 all
 hesitation1 is as hopeless as for the  
ox  to kick against the goad2 instant   
obedience alone is in place4    ,the    
weight of the apostle's own testimony is
 therefore in no sense  removed by ,acts
 xxvi4 #ad4 ,that testimony is          
unequivocally opposed to  all attempts  
at exhibiting a psychological process   
culminating in  the conversion4 ,these  
attempts1 however1 because of the       
importance  which has been attributed to
 them1 must now be examined4 ,in        
general1  they are becoming less and    
less elaborate2 contemporary scholars   
are usually content to dismiss the      
psychological problem of the  conversion
 with a few general observations about  
the secret of  personality1 or1 at the  
most1 a brief word about the possible   
condition of the apostle's mind4 ,since 
the direct interposition of  the risen  
,christ is rejected1 it is held that    
there must have been  some psychological
 preparation for the ,damascus          

experience1 but  what that preparation  
was remains hidden1 it is said1 in the  
secret  places of the soul1 which no    
psychological analysis can ever fully   
reveal4    ,if1 however1 the problem is 
not thus to be dismissed as insoluble1  
no unanimity has been achieved among    
those who attempt a solution4  ,two     
principal lines of solution of the      
problem may perhaps be                  
distinguished--that which begins with   
the objective evidence as  it presented 
itself to the persecutor1 and that which
 starts with  the seventh chapter of    
,romans and the persecutor's own sense  
of  need4 ,the former line was followed 
by ,holsten1 whose monographs  still    
constitute the most elaborate exposition
 of the psychological  process supposed 
to lie back of the conversion4#cd       
,according to  ,holsten1 the process    
centered in the consideration of the    
,cross  of ,christ4 ,that consideration 
of course resulted at first in an       
attitude of hostility on the part of    

,paul4 ,the ,cross was a shameful       
thing2 the proclamation of a crucified  
,messiah appeared1 therefore1  to the   
devout ,pharisee as an outrageous       
blasphemy4 ,but the disciples           
represented the ,cross as in accordance 
with the will of ,god1 and  supported   
their contention by the evidence for the
 resurrection2  the resurrection was    
made to overcome the offense of the     
,cross4 ,but  against the evidence for  
the resurrection1 ,holsten believes1    
,paul  was helpless1 the possibility of 
resurrection being fully recognized  in 
his ,pharisaic training4 ,what then if  
the resurrection really  vindicated the 
claims of ,jesus to be the ,messiah8    
,paul was by no  means convinced1       
,holsten believes1 that such was the    
case4 ,but the  possibility was         
necessarily in his mind1 if only for the
 purposes  of refutation4 ,at this point
 ,paul began to advance1 according to   
,holsten1 beyond the earlier disciples4 
,on the assumption that the             

resurrection really did vindicate the   
claims of ,jesus1 the ,cross  would have
 to be explained4 ,but an explanation   
lay ready to hand1  and ,paul applied   
this explanation with a thoroughness    
which the  earlier disciples had not    
attained4 ,the earlier disciples removed
  the offense of the ,cross by          
representing the ,cross as part of the  
plan of ,god for the ,messiah2 ,paul    
exhibited the meaning of that  plan much
 more clearly than they4 ,he exhibited  
the meaning of the  ,cross by applying  
to it the category of vicarious         
suffering1 which  could be found1 for   
example1 in ,isaiah liii4 ,at this point
 the  pre-,christian development of     
,paul was over4 ,the ,pauline gnosis of 
the ,cross was already formed4 ,of      
course1 before the conversion it  was to
 ,paul entirely a matter of supposition4
 ,on the supposition1  still regarded as
 false1 that the resurrection had really
 taken  place1 the ,cross1 far from     
being an offense1 would become a        

glorious  fact4 ,all the essential      
elements of ,paul's gospel of the ,cross
 were  thus present in ,paul's mind     
before the conversion2 the validity  of 
them had been posited by him for the    
purposes of argument4 ,the  only thing  
that was lacking to make ,paul a        
disciple of ,jesus was  conviction of   
the fact of the resurrection4 ,that     
conviction was  supplied by the         
,damascus experience4 ,the unstable     
equilibrium then  was over2 the elements
 of the ,pauline gospel1 which were all 
present  before1 fell at once into their
 proper places4      #cd ,holsten1 ,zum 
,evangelium des ,paulus und des ,petrus1
 #ahfh4    ,against ,holsten1 see       
,beyschlag1 ,die ,bekehrung des         
,apostels ,paulus1    mit besonderer    
,rcksicht auf die ,erklrungsversuche von
 ,baur und    ,holsten1 in ,theologische
 ,studien und ,kritiken1 xxxvii1 #ahfd1 
pp4    #aig-bfd2 ,die ,visionshypothese 
in ihrer neuesten ,begrndung4 ,eine     
,duplik gegen ,d4 ,holsten1 ibid41      

xliii1 #ahgj1 pp4 #g-ej1 #ahi-bfc4      
,the other way of explaining the        
conversion starts from the seventh      
chapter of ,romans and the              
dissatisfaction which ,paul is thought  
to  have experienced under the ,law4    
,paul1 it is said1 was a ,pharisee2 he  
made every effort to keep the ,law of   
,god4 ,but he was too earnest to  be    
satisfied with a merely external        
obedience2 and real obedience he  had   
not attained4 ,he was therefore         
tormented by a sense of sin4 ,that      
sense of sin no doubt led him into a    
more and more feverish effort  to keep  
the letter of the ,law and particularly 
to show his zeal by  persecuting the    
disciples of ,jesus4 ,but all his       
efforts were vain2  his obedience       
remained insufficient2 the curse of the 
,law still  rested upon him4 ,what if   
the vain effort could be abandoned8     
,what if  the disciples of ,jesus were  
right8 ,of course1 he believed1 they    
were  not right1 but what if they were8 

,what if the ,messiah had really  died  
for the sins of believers1 in accordance
 with ,isaiah liii8 ,what  if salvation 
were attainable not by merit but by     
divine grace8 ,these  questions1 it is  
supposed1 were in the mind of ,paul4 ,he
 answered  them still in the negative1  
but his misery kept them ever before his
  mind4 ,the ,law was thus a            
schoolmaster to bring him to ,christ4   
,he was  ready for the vision4    ,in   
both of these lines of explanation      
importance is often attributed  to the  
impression produced upon ,paul's mind by
 the character of  the disciples4       
,whence did they derive their bravery   
and their joy  in the midst of          
persecution8 ,whence came the fervor of 
their love1  whence the firmness of     
their faith8 ,the persecutor1 it is     
said1 was  impressed against his will4  
,the fundamental objection to all these 
theories of psychological  development  
is that they describe only what might   
have been or what  ought to have been1  

and not what actually was4 ,no doubt    
,paul ought  to have been coming nearer 
to ,christianity2 but as a matter of    
fact  he was rather getting further     
away1 and he records the fact in no     
uncertain terms in his ,epistles4 ,there
 are objections1 moreover1 to  the      
various theories of development in      
detail2 and the advocates of  one theory
 are often the severest critics of      
another4    ,with regard to ,holsten's  
exposition of the gnosis of the  ,cross1
 for example1 there is not the slightest
 evidence that  the pre-,christian ,jews
 interpreted ,isaiah liii of the        
vicarious  sufferings of the ,messiah1  
or had any notion of the ,messiah's     
vicarious death4#ce ,it is not true1    
moreover1 as ,beyschlag pointed  out    
against ,holsten1 that ,paul was        
helpless in the face of the  evidence   
for the resurrection4#cf ,according to  
,paul's ,pharisaic  training1 the       
resurrection would come only at the end 
of the age2 a  resurrection like the    

resurrection of ,jesus1 therefore1 was  
by no  means a matter of course1 and    
could be established only by positive   
evidence of the most direct and         
unequivocal kind4      #ce ,see ,schrer1
 ,geschichte des jdischen ,volkes1 #dte 
,aufl41 ii1    #aijg1 pp4 #fdh-fea      
7,english ,translation1 ,a ,history of  
the ,jewish    ,people1 ,division ,,ii1 
vol4 ii1 #ahhe1 pp4 #ahd-ahg74      #cf 
,beyschlag1 ,die ,visionshypothese in   
ihrer neuesten ,begrndung1    in        
,theologische ,studien und ,kritiken1   
xliii1 #ahgj1 pp4 #ai-ba4    ,with      
regard to the sense of sin as the goad  
which forced ,paul to  accept the       
,saviour1 there is no evidence that     
before his conversion  ,paul was under  
real conviction of sin4 ,it is very     
doubtful whether  ,rom4 vii4 #g-be1 with
 its account of the struggle between the
  flesh and the higher nature of man1   
refers to the unregenerate  rather than 
to the regenerate life2 and even if the 
former view is  correct1 it is doubtful 

whether the description is taken from   
the  apostle's own experience4 ,at any  
rate1 the struggle1 even if it be  a    
struggle in the unregenerate man1 is    
described from the point of  view of the
 regenerate2 it is not implied1         
therefore1 that before  the entrance of 
the ,spirit of ,god a man is fully      
conscious of his  own helplessness and  
of the desperateness of the struggle4   
,the  passage therefore1 does not afford
 any certain information about  the     
pre-,christian life of ,paul4           
,undoubtedly before the conversion  the 
conscience of ,paul was aroused2 he was 
conscientious in his  devotion to the   
,law4 ,probably he was conscious of his 
failings4 ,but  that such consciousness 
of failure amounted to anything like    
that  genuine conviction of sin which   
leads a man to accept the ,saviour      
remains very doubtful4 ,recognized      
failure to keep the ,law perfectly  led 
in the case of ,paul merely to greater  
zeal for the ,law1 a zeal  which was    

manifested especially in the persecution
 of a blasphemous  sect whose teaching  
was subversive of the authority of      
,moses4    ,finally1 it is highly       
improbable that ,paul was favorably     
impressed  by the bravery of those whom 
he was persecuting4 ,it may seem strange
  at first sight that the same man who  
wrote the thirteenth chapter  of #a     
,corinthians should have haled helpless 
men and women to prison  without a      
qualm1 or listened without pity to the  
dying words of  ,stephen1 ,lord1 lay not
 this sin to their charge4 ,but it is   
very  dangerous to argue back from the  
,christian life of ,paul to the life  of
 ,paul the ,pharisee4 ,paul himself was 
conscious of a complete moral           
transformation as having taken place in 
him when he saw the ,lord  near         
,damascus4 ,what was impossible for him 
after that transformation  may well have
 been possible before4 ,moreover1 if1   
despite such  considerations1 we could  
argue back from ,paul the disciple of   

,jesus  to ,paul the ,pharisee1 there is
 one characteristic of the apostle      
which would never have permitted him to 
persecute those by whom  he was         
favorably impressed--namely1 his        
complete sincerity4 ,the  picture of    
,saul the doubter1 torn by conflicting  
emotions1 impressed  by the calmness and
 bravery and magnanimity of those whom  
he was  persecuting1 yet stifling such  
impressions by persecuting zeal1 is     
very romantic1 but very un-,pauline4    
,but in attributing the conversion of   
,paul altogether to the  experience on  
the road to ,damascus1 are we not       
heaping up into one  moment what must of
 very necessity in conscious life be the
 work  of years8 ,is it conceivable that
 ideas should have been implanted  in   
the mind of a person not by processes of
 acquisition but  mechanically as though
 by a hypodermic syringe8 ,would not    
such an  experience1 even if it were    
possible1 be altogether destructive of  
personality8    ,the objection serves to

 correct possible misunderstandings4    
,the  view of the conversion which has  
just been set forth does not mean  that 
when ,paul drew near to ,damascus on    
that memorable day he was  ignorant of  
the facts about ,jesus4 ,if he had never
 heard of ,jesus1  or if having heard of
 ,him he knew absolutely nothing about  
,him1 then  perhaps the conversion would
 have been not only supernatural but    
inconceivable4 ,but it is not the       
traditional view of the conversion      
which is guilty of such exaggerations4  
,they are the product rather  of that   
separation of ,paul from the historical 
,jesus which appears  for example in    
,wrede and in ,bousset4 ,according to   
any reasonable  view of ,paul's         
pre-,christian experience1 ,paul was    
well acquainted1  before the conversion1
 with many of the facts about ,jesus'   
life  and death2 what he received on the
 road to ,damascus was a new            
interpretation of the facts and a new   
attitude toward them4 ,he had  known the

 facts before1 but they had filled him  
with hatred2 now his  hatred was changed
 into love4    ,even after exaggerations
 have been removed1 however1 the change 
wrought by the ,damascus experience     
remains revolutionary enough4 ,is  that 
change conceivable8 ,could hatred have  
been changed into love  merely by an    
experience which convinced ,paul of the 
fact of the  resurrection8 ,the answer  
to this question depends altogether upon
  the nature of the ,damascus           
experience4 ,if that experience was     
merely  an hallucination1 the question  
must be answered in the negative2 an    
hallucination could never have produced 
the profound changes in the  personal   
life of ,paul which have just been      
contemplated2 and the  historian would  
be obliged to fall back1 despite the    
unequivocal  testimony of the ,epistles1
 upon some theory of psychological      
development of which the hallucination  
would only be the climax4  ,but even    
those who maintain the supernaturalistic

 view of the  conversion have too often 
failed to do justice to the content of  
the experience4 ,one fundamental feature
 of the experience has too  often been  
forgotten--the appearance on the road to
 ,damascus was the  appearance of a     
person4 ,sometimes the event has been   
regarded merely  as a supernatural      
interposition of ,god intended to       
produce belief  in the fact of the      
resurrection1 as merely a sign4         
,undoubtedly it  was a sign4 ,but it was
 far more2 it was contact between       
persons4  ,but contact between persons1 
even under ordinary conditions1 is      
exceedingly mysterious2 merely a look or
 the tone of the voice  sometimes       
produces astonishing results4 ,who has  
not experienced  the transition from    
mere hearsay knowledge of a person to   
actual  contact8 ,one meeting is often  
sufficient to revolutionize the  entire 
impression2 indifference or hostility   
gives place at once  to enthusiastic    
devotion4 ,those who speak of the       

transformation  wrought in ,paul by the 
appearance of ,jesus as magical or      
mechanical  or inconceivable have never 
reflected upon the mysteries of personal
  intercourse4    ,only1 it must have   
been a real person whom ,paul met on the
 road to  ,damascus--not a vision1 not a
 mere sign4 ,if it was merely a vision  
or a sign1 all the objections remain in 
force4 ,but if it was really  ,jesus1   
the sight of ,his face and the words of 
love which ,he uttered  may have been   
amply sufficient1 provided the heart of 
,paul was  renewed by the power of      
,god's ,spirit1 to transform hatred into
 love4  ,to call such an experience     
magic is to blaspheme all that is       
highest  in human life4 ,god was using  
no unworthy instrument when1 by the     
personal presence of the ,saviour1 ,he  
transformed the life of ,paul4    ,there
 is1 therefore1 no moral or             
psychological objection in the way  of a
 simple acceptance of ,paul's testimony 
about the conversion4  ,and that        

testimony is unequivocal4 ,paul was not 
converted by any  teaching which he     
received from men2 he was not converted 
as  ,christians are usually converted1  
by the preaching of the truth or  by    
that revelation of ,christ which is     
contained in the lives of ,his          
followers4 ,jesus ,himself in the case  
of ,paul did in visible presence  what  
,he ordinarily does by the means which  
,he has appointed4 ,upon  this          
immediateness of the conversion1 ,paul  
is willing to stake the  whole of his   
life2 upon it he bases his apostolic    
authority4          ,,chapter ,,iii     
,,the ,,triumph ,,of ,,gentile ,,freedom
          ,,chapter ,,iii    ,,the      
,,triumph ,,of ,,gentile ,,freedom      
,after the conversion1 according to the 
,book of ,acts1 ,paul received  the     
ministrations of ,ananias1 and was      
baptized4#cg ,these details  are not    
excluded by the ,epistle to the         
,galatians4 ,in the ,epistle1  ,paul    
says that after ,god had revealed ,his  

son in him he did not  confer with flesh
 and blood2#ch but the conference with  
flesh  and blood which he was concerned 
to deny was a conference with  the      
original apostles at ,jerusalem about   
the principles of the  gospel1 not a    
conference with humble disciples at     
,damascus4  ,an over-interpretation of  
,galatians would here lead almost to    
absurdity4 ,is it to be supposed that   
after the conversion ,paul  refused to  
have anything whatever to do with those 
who were now his  brethren8 ,in         
particular1 is it to be supposed that he
 who afterwards  placed baptism as a    
matter of course at the beginning of the
 new  life for every ,christian should  
himself not have been baptized8 ,the    
,epistle to the ,galatians does not     
mention his baptism1 but that  omission 
merely illustrates the incompleteness of
 the account4 ,and  if the baptism of   
,paul1 which certainly must have taken  
place1 is  omitted from ,galatians1     
other omissions must not be regarded as 

any more significant4 ,the first two    
chapters of ,galatians are not  intended
 to furnish complete biography4 ,only   
those details are  mentioned which were 
important for ,paul's argument or had   
been  misrepresented by his ,judaizing  
opponents4      #cg ,acts ix4 #aj-ai2   
xxii4 #ab-af4      #ch ,gal4 i4 #af4    
,after ,god had revealed ,his son in    
him1 ,paul says1 he went away  into     
,arabia4 ,apparently this journey to    
,arabia is to be put very  soon after   
the revelation1 though the construction 
of the word  immediately in ,gal4 i4 #af
 is not perfectly clear4 ,if that word  
goes merely with the negative part of   
the sentence1 then nothing  is said     
about the time of the journey to        
,arabia2 ,paul would say  merely that in
 the period just after the revelation of
 ,god's ,son he  did not go up to       
,jerusalem4 ,there would then be no     
difficulty in  the assertion of ,acts   
which seems to put a stay in ,damascus  
with  preaching activity in the         

synagogues immediately after the        
baptism4  ,this interpretation is       
adopted by a number of modern           
commentators1  not only by ,b4 ,weiss   
and ,zahn1 who might be suspected of a  
bias in  favor of the ,book of ,acts1   
but also by ,sieffert and ,lipsius and  
,bousset4 ,perhaps more naturally1      
however1 the word immediately in        
,galatians is to be taken grammatically 
with the positive part of  the sentence 
or with the whole sentence2 the sentence
 would then  mean1 ,immediately1 instead
 of conferring with flesh and blood  or 
going up to ,jerusalem to those who were
 apostles before me1 ,i  went away into 
,arabia and again ,i returned to        
,damascus4 ,even so1  however1 there is 
no real contradiction with ,acts4 ,when 
,paul tells  what happened immediately  
after the revelation he is thinking in  
terms not of days but of journeys4 ,the 
very first journey after the            
conversion--and it took place soon--was 
not to ,jerusalem but to  ,arabia4 ,when

 taken in the context the sentence does 
not exclude a  brief preaching activity 
in ,damascus before the journey to      
,arabia4  ,grammatically the word       
immediately may go with the positive    
part  of the sentence1 but in essential 
import it goes rather with the  negative
 part4 ,what ,paul is really concerned  
about is to deny that  he went up to    
,jerusalem soon after his conversion4   
,the ,book of ,acts does not mention the
 journey to ,arabia and does  not make  
clear where it may be inserted4         
,sometimes it is placed in  the middle  
of ,acts ix4 #ai1 before the words1 ,and
 he was with the  disciples in ,damascus
 some days4 ,in that case the discussion
 about  the word immediately in ,gal4 i4
 #af would be unnecessary2 that  word   
could be taken strictly with the        
positive part of the sentence  without  
contradicting the ,book of ,acts2 the   
journey to ,arabia would  have preceded 
the preaching activity in ,damascus4 ,or
 the journey  may be placed before ,acts

 ix4 #bb2 it would then be the cause of 
the  greater vigor of ,paul's preaching4
 ,finally1 it may be placed simply      
within the many days of ,acts ix4 #bc4  
,the phrase1 many days1 in  ,acts       
apparently is used to indicate fairly   
long periods of time4 ,it  must be      
remembered that the author of ,acts is  
not concerned here  about chronology2   
perhaps he did not trouble himself to   
investigate  the exact period of time   
that elapsed before the journey to      
,jerusalem4 ,he was content merely to   
record the fact that before ,paul  went 
to ,jerusalem he engaged for a          
considerable time in preaching  in the  
,damascus synagogues4 ,certainly he must
 here be acquitted of  any attempt at   
subserving the interests of harmony in  
the ,church by  a falsification of      
history4 ,it is generally recognized    
now1 against  the ,tbingen contentions1 
that if the author of ,acts contradicts 
,galatians1 his contradiction is nave   
rather than deliberate2 the             

contradiction or apparent contradiction 
at least shows the complete             
independence of his account4 ,he is not 
deliberately shortening up  the time    
before ,paul's first conference with    
,peter in the interests  of a compromise
 between a ,pauline and a ,petrine party
 in the ,church2  if he had had the     
three years of ,paul before him as he   
wrote he  would have had no objection to
 using the detail in his history4 ,but  
investigation of the chronology did not 
here seem to be important4  ,the detail 
of the three years was vastly important 
for ,paul's  argument in ,galatians1    
where he is showing that for a          
considerable  period after the          
conversion he did not even meet those   
from whom  he was said to have received 
his gospel1 but it was not at all       
important in a general history of the   
progress of the ,church4    ,the extent 
of the journey to ,arabia1 both         
geographically and  temporally1 is      
entirely unknown4 ,arabia included not  

only very  remote regions but also a    
territory almost at the gates of        
,damascus2  and all that may be         
determined about the length of the      
,arabian  residence is that it was less 
than three years4 ,possibly ,paul       
remained only a few weeks in ,arabia4   
,in that case the omission of  the      
journey from the general narrative in   
,acts is very natural4  ,the importance 
of ,arabia in ,paul's argument is due   
simply to the  fact that ,arabia was not
 ,jerusalem2 ,paul mentions the journey 
to  ,arabia simply in contrast with a   
journey to ,jerusalem which he  is      
excluding in the interests of his       
argument4 ,the only thing  that might   
seem to require a considerable stay in  
,arabia is the  narrative of ,paul's    
first ,jerusalem visit in ,acts ix4     
#bf-cj2 the  distrust of ,paul displayed
 by the ,jerusalem ,christians is more  
easily explicable if after his          
conversion he had been living for the   
most part in a region more remote than  

,damascus from ,jerusalem4 ,a  similar  
consideration might possibly suggest    
that in ,arabia ,paul  was engaged in   
meditation rather than in missionary    
activity2 he had  not yet become so well
 known as a preacher that the           
,christians of  ,jerusalem could begin  
to glorify ,god in him1 as they did a   
little  later4 ,possibly also there is  
an implied contrast in ,gal4 i4 #af1 #ag
  between conference with the original  
apostles and direct communion  with     
,christ2 possibly ,paul means to say1   
,instead of conferring with  flesh and  
blood in ,jerusalem1 ,i communed with   
the ,lord in ,arabia4  ,despite such    
considerations1 the matter is by no     
means perfectly  clear2 it is perfectly 
possible that ,paul engaged in          
missionary work  in ,arabia4 ,but at any
 rate1 even if that view be correct1 he 
also  engaged in meditation4 ,paul was  
never a mere practical ,christian  in   
the modern sense2 labor in his case was 
always based upon  thought1 and life    

upon doctrine4    ,the escape of ,paul  
from ,damascus just before his first    
visit to  ,jerusalem is narrated in     
,acts ix4 #bc-be and in #b ,cor4 xi4    
#cb1 #cc4  ,the mention of the ethnarch 
of ,aretas the ,nabatean king as having 
authority at or near ,damascus causes   
some difficulty1 and might not  have    
passed unchallenged if it had been      
attested by ,acts4 ,but as a  matter of 
fact1 it is just this detail which      
appears1 not in ,acts1  but in an       
epistle of ,paul4    ,the first visit of
 ,paul to ,jerusalem after the          
conversion is  described in ,acts ix4   
#bf-cj2 xxii4 #ag-ba2 ,gal4 i4 #ah1 #ai4
 ,in itself1  the account in ,acts bears
 every mark of trustworthiness4 ,the    
only  detail which might seem surprising
 is that the ,jerusalem ,christians     
would not at first believe that ,paul   
was a disciple2 must not a  notable     
event like the conversion of so         
prominent a persecutor have  become     
known at ,jerusalem in the course of    

three years8 ,but if ,paul  had spent a 
large part of the three years in        
,arabia1 whence news  of him could not  
be easily obtained1 the report of his   
conversion  might have come to seem like
 a remote rumor2 the very fact of his   
withdrawal might1 as has been suggested1
 have cast suspicion upon  the reality  
of his conversion4 ,emotion1 moreover1  
often lags behind  cold reasoning2 the  
heart is more difficult to convince than
 the  mind4 ,the ,jerusalem ,christians 
had known ,paul only as a cruel and     
relentless persecutor2 it was not so    
easy for them to receive him  at once as
 a brother4 ,this one detail is         
therefore not at all  sufficient to     
reverse the favorable impression which  
is made by the  ,lucan account of the   
visit as a whole4    ,the chief         
objection to the account is usually     
found in a comparison  with what ,paul  
himself says in ,galatians4 ,in itself1 
the account is  natural2 but does it    
agree with ,paul's own testimony8 ,one  

apparent  divergence may indeed soon be 
dismissed4 ,in ,acts ix4 #bg it is said 
that ,paul was introduced to the        
apostles1 whereas in ,gal4 i4 #ai it  is
 said that ,paul saw only ,james1 the   
brother of the ,lord 7who was  not among
 the ,twelve71 and ,peter4 ,but possibly
 the author of ,acts is  using the term 
apostle in a sense broad enough to      
include ,james1  so that ,paul actually 
saw two apostles--,peter and ,james--or 
else  the plural is used merely in a    
generic sense to indicate that ,paul    
was introduced to whatever              
representative or representatives of the
  apostolic body may have happened to be
 present4    ,much more weight is       
commonly attributed to an objection     
drawn from  the general representation  
of the visit4 ,according to ,acts1 ,paul
  was associated publicly with the      
,jerusalem disciples and engaged  in an 
active mission among the ,greek-speaking
 ,jews2 according to  ,galatians1 it is 
argued1 he was in strict hiding1 since  

he did not  become acquainted personally
 with the churches of ,juda 7,gal4 i4   
#bb74 ,but the objection1 as has already
 been observed1 depends upon  an        
over-interpretation of ,gal4 i4 #bb4    
,whether or no ,juda means  the country 
in sharp distinction from the capital1  
in either case  all that is necessarily 
meant is that ,paul did not become      
acquainted  generally with the ,judan   
churches4 ,the capital may well have    
formed  an exception4 ,if ,paul had     
meant in the preceding verses that he   
had  been in hiding in ,jerusalem he    
would have expressed himself very       
differently4 ,certainly the modern      
representation of the visit is  in      
itself improbable4 ,the picture of ,paul
 entering ,jerusalem under  cover of    
darkness or under a disguise and being  
kept as a mysterious  stranger somewhere
 in a secret chamber of ,peter's house  
is certainly  much less natural than the
 account which the ,book of ,acts gives 
of  the earnest attempt of ,paul to     

repair the damage which he had done  to 
the ,jerusalem ,church4 ,it is very     
doubtful whether concealment  of ,paul  
in ,jerusalem would have been possible  
even if ,paul had  consented to it2 he  
was too well-known in the city4 ,of     
course this  last argument would be     
answered if1 as ,heitmller and ,loisy   
suppose1  ,paul had never been in       
,jerusalem at all1 even as a persecutor4
 ,but  that hypothesis is faced by      
absolutely decisive objections1 as has  
already been observed4    ,the whole    
modern representation of the first      
visit1 therefore1 is  based solely upon 
a very doubtful interpretation of one   
verse1 and  is in itself highly         
unnatural4 ,surely it is much more      
probable that  the real reason why ,paul
 saw only ,peter and ,james among the   
leaders  was that the others were out of
 the city1 engaged in missionary work   
in ,juda4 ,their presence in the        
churches of ,juda would explain the     
mention of those churches in ,gal4 i4   

#bb4 ,paul is indicating the  meagerness
 of his direct contact with the original
 apostles4 ,the  churches of ,juda would
 become important in his argument if    
they  were the scene of the apostles'   
labors4 ,against a very doubtful        
interpretation of the account in        
,galatians1 which brings it into        
contradiction with ,acts1 may therefore 
be placed an entirely  consistent       
interpretation which1 when the account  
is combined with  ,acts1 produces a     
thoroughly natural representation of the
 course of  events4    ,paul says       
nothing about what happened during his  
fifteen-day  intercourse with ,peter4   
,but it is highly improbable1 as even   
,holsten  pointed out1 that he spent the
 time gazing silently at ,peter as      
though ,peter were one of the sights of 
the city4#ci ,undoubtedly  there was    
conversation between the two men1 and in
 the conversation  the subject of the   
life and death of ,jesus could hardly be
 avoided4  ,in the ,epistle to the      

,galatians ,paul denies1 indeed1 that he
  received his gospel from men4 ,but the
 bare facts about ,jesus did  not       
constitute a gospel4 ,the facts were    
known to some extent to  friend and foe 
alike2 ,paul knew something about them  
even before his  conversion and then    
increased his knowledge through         
intercourse with  the disciples at      
,damascus4 ,the fifteen days spent in   
company with  ,peter could hardly have  
failed to bring a further enrichment of 
his  knowledge4      #ci ,holsten1 op4  
cit41 p4 #aah1 ,amn43 ,aber natrlich    
kann in dem      nicht liegen1 ,paulus  
sei nach ,jerusalem gegangen1 um den    
,petrus fnfzehn tage lang stumm         
anzuschauen4 ,die beiden mnner    werden
 miteinander ber das evangelium ,christi
 geredet haben4    ,in #a ,cor4 xv4     
#c-g1 ,paul gives a summary of what he  
had  received--the death1 burial1       
resurrection1 and appearances of        
,jesus4 ,the vast majority of modern    
investigators1 of all shades of         

opinion1 find in these verses a summary 
of the ,jerusalem tradition  which ,paul
 received from ,peter during the fifteen
 days4 ,undoubtedly  ,paul knew some if 
not all of these facts before he went to
  ,jerusalem2 the facts were probably   
common property of the disciples  in    
,damascus as well as in ,jerusalem4 ,but
 it is inconceivable that  he should not
 have tested and supplemented the       
tradition by what  ,peter1 whose name   
stands first 7#a ,cor4 xv4 #e7 in the   
list of the  appearances1 said in       
,jerusalem4 ,recently1 indeed1 an       
attempt has  been made by ,heitmller to 
represent the tradition as being derived
  merely from the ,christian communities
 in ,damascus or ,antioch1 and  at best 
only indirectly from ,jerusalem2 these  
communities are thus  interposed as an  
additional link between ,paul and the   
,jerusalem  ,church4#dj ,but the very   
purpose of the passage in #a            
,corinthians is  to emphasize the unity 
of teaching1 not between ,paul and      

certain  obscure ,christians in         
,hellenistic communities1 but between   
,paul  and the apostles4 ,whether       
therefore1 ,paul says1 it be ,i or      
they1 so we preach and so ye believed   
7#a ,cor4 xv4 #aa74 ,the attempt  at    
separating the factual basis of the     
,pauline gospel from the  primitive     
tradition shatters upon the rock of #a  
,corinthians and  ,galatians4 ,in       
,galatians1 ,paul says he was in direct 
intercourse with  ,peter1 and in #a     
,corinthians he emphasizes the unity of 
his teaching  with that of ,peter and   
the other apostles4      #dj ,heitmller1
 ,zum ,problem ,paulus und ,jesus1 in   
,zeitschrift    fr die neutestamentliche
 ,wissenschaft1 xiii1 #aiab1 pp4        
#cbj-ccg1    especially p4 #cca4        
,after leaving ,jerusalem ,paul went    
into the regions of ,syria and  of      
,cilicia2 the ,book of ,acts1 more      
specifically1 mentions ,tarsus          
7,cilicia7 and ,antioch 7,syria74 ,the  
period which ,paul spent in ,tarsus  or 

in its vicinity is for us altogether    
obscure4 ,in all probability  he engaged
 in missionary work and included        
,gentiles in his mission4  ,certainly at
 the conclusion of the ,cilician period 
,barnabas thought  him suitable for the 
specifically ,gentile work at ,antioch1 
and it  is probable that he had already 
demonstrated his suitability4 ,his      
apostolic consciousness1 also1 as       
attested both by the ,book of ,acts  and
 by ,galatians1 suggests that the       
beginning of his life-work as  apostle  
to the ,gentiles was not too long       
deferred4    ,at ,antioch1 the disciples
 were first called ,christians 7,acts   
xi4  #bf74 ,the objections1 especially  
linguistic1 formerly urged against  this
 assertion of ,acts have now for the    
most part been silenced4  ,the assertion
 is important as showing that the       
,church was becoming  so clearly        
separate from the synagogue that a      
separate name had  to be coined by the  
,gentile population4 ,tremendous        

importance is  attributed to the        
,christian community at ,antioch by     
,bousset and  ,heitmller1 who believe   
that the religion of that community had 
diverged in fundamental respects from   
the religion of the primitive           
,jerusalem ,church1 and that this       
extra-,palestinian ,christianity1 and   
not the ,christianity of ,jerusalem1 is 
the basis of the religion  of ,paul4    
,according to this hypothesis1 the      
independence of ,paul  which is attested
 in ,galatians is apparently to be      
regarded as  independence merely over   
against the intimate friends of ,jesus2 
apparently ,paul had no objection       
against taking over the teaching of  the
 ,greek-speaking ,christians of         
,antioch4 ,this representation is out   
of accord with what has just been       
established about the relations  between
 ,paul and the ,jerusalem ,church4 ,it  
must be examined more in  detail1       
however1 in a subsequent chapter4       
,after at least a year--probably        

more--,barnabas and ,saul1 according  to
 ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4 #be1 were sent up  
to ,jerusalem to bear the  gifts of the 
,antioch ,church1 which had been        
collected in view of  the famine        
prophesied by ,agabus4 ,this famine     
visit is the second  visit of ,paul to  
,jerusalem which is mentioned in ,acts4 
,the second  visit which is mentioned in
 ,galatians is the one described in     
,gal4  ii4 #a-aj1 at which ,paul came   
into conference with the pillars of the 
,jerusalem ,church4 ,may the two be     
identified8 ,is ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj an      
account of the visit which is mentioned 
in ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4 #be8da      #da  
,for what follows1 compare ,recent      
,criticism of the ,book of    ,acts1 in 
,princeton ,theological ,review1 xvii1  
#aiai1 pp4 #eig-fjh4    ,chronology     
opposes no absolutely insuperable       
objection to the  identification4 ,the  
apparent objection is as follows4 ,the  
famine  visit of ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4 #be
 took place at about the same time  as  

the events narrated in ,acts xii1 since 
the narrative of those  events is       
interposed between the mention of the   
coming of ,barnabas  and ,paul to       
,jerusalem 7,acts xi4 #cj7 and that of  
their return to  ,antioch 7,acts xii4   
#be74 ,but the events of ,acts xii      
include the  death of ,herod ,agrippa   
,i1 which certainly occurred in #dd     
,a4,d4 ,the  famine visit1 therefore1   
apparently occurred at about #dd ,a4,d4 
,but  the visit of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj took 
place fourteen years 7,gal4 ii4 #a7     
after the first visit1 which in turn    
took place three years 7,gal4 i4  #ah7  
after the conversion4 ,therefore the    
visit of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj took  place    
seventeen 7#c  #ad7 years after the     
conversion4 ,but if that  visit be      
identified with the famine visit and the
 famine visit took  place in #dd ,a4,d41
 the conversion must have taken place   
seventeen  years before #dd ,a4,d4 or in
 #bg ,a4,d41 which of course is         
impossible  since the crucifixion of    

,jesus did not occur till several years 
after that time4 ,at first sight1       
therefore1 it looks as though  the      
identification of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj with  
the famine visit were  impossible4      
,closer examination1 however1 shows that
 the chronological data all  allow a    
certain amount of leeway4 ,in the first 
place1 it is by no  means clear that the
 famine visit took place at exactly the 
time  of the death of ,herod ,agrippa ,i
 in #dd ,a4,d4 ,the author of ,acts has 
been carrying on two threads of         
narrative1 one dealing with ,antioch    
and the other dealing with ,jerusalem4  
,in ,acts xi4 #ai-cj he has  carried the
 ,antioch narrative on to a point beyond
 that reached in  the ,jerusalem        
narrative4 ,now1 when the two narratives
 are brought  together by the visit of  
,barnabas and ,paul to ,jerusalem1 the  
author  pauses in order to bring the    
,jerusalem narrative up to date2 he     
tells what has been happening at        
,jerusalem during the period in  which  

the reader's attention has been diverted
 to ,antioch4 ,the  events of ,acts xii 
may therefore have taken place some time
 before  the famine visit of ,acts xi4  
#cj2 xii4 #be2 the famine visit may have
  taken place some time after #dd ,a4,d4
 ,information in ,josephus with  regard 
to the famine1#db combined with the     
order of the narrative  in ,acts1       
permits the placing of the famine visit 
as late as #df ,a4,d4  ,in the second   
place1 it is by no means certain that   
the visit of  ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj took place
 seventeen years after the conversion4  
,the  ancients sometimes used an        
inclusive method of reckoning time1 in  
accordance with which three years might 
mean only one full year  with parts of  
two other years2 ,january1 #aibc1 would 
thus be three  years after ,december1   
#aiba4 ,according to this method of     
reckoning1  the fourteen years of ,gal4 
ii4 #a would become only thirteen2 and  
the three years of ,gal4 i4 #ah would   
become only two years2 the  visit of    

,gal4 ii4 #a-aj would thus be only      
fifteen 7#ac  #b7 instead  of seventeen 
7#ad  #c7 years after the conversion4   
,if1 then1 the  visit of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj
 be identified with the famine visit1   
and the  famine visit took place in #df 
,a4,d41 the conversion took place in    
#ca ,a4,d4 7#df - #ae71 which is a      
possible date4 ,moreover1 it is not     
certain that the fourteen years of ,gal4
 ii4 #a is to be reckoned  from the     
first visit2 it may be reckoned from the
 conversion1 so  that the three years of
 ,gal4 i4 #ah is to be included in it   
and  not added to it4 ,in that case1 the
 conversion took place only  fourteen   
7or1 by the inclusive method of         
reckoning1 thirteen7 years  before the  
visit of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj2 or1 if the    
visit of ,gal4 ii4  #a-aj be identified 
with the famine visit1 fourteen 7or     
thirteen7  years before #df ,a4,d41 that
 is1 in #cb ,a4,d4 7or #cc ,a4,d471     
which is a  perfectly possible date4    
#db ,josephus1 ,antiq4 ,,xx4 v4 #b4 ,see

 ,schrer1 ,geschichte des    jdischen   
,volkes1 #cte u4 #dte ,aufl41 i1 #aija1 
p4 #efg 7,english    ,translation1 ,a   
,history of the ,jewish ,people1        
,division ,i1 vol4 ii1    #ahij1 pp4    
#afi;f474    ,but of course chronology  
does not decide in favor of the         
identification of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj with  
,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4 #be2 at  best it    
only permits that identification4       
,chronologically it is  even slightly   
more convenient to identify ,gal4 ii4   
#a-aj with a  visit subsequent to the   
famine visit4 ,the only subsequent visit
  which comes seriously in question is  
the visit at the time of the  ,apostolic
 ,council of ,acts xv4 #a-bi4 ,the      
advantages of identifying  ,gal4 ii4    
#a-aj with ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4 #be1     
therefore1 must be compared  with those 
of identifying it with ,acts xv4 #a-bi4 
,if the former identification be        
adopted1 then ,paul in ,galatians has   
not mentioned the ,apostolic ,council of
 ,acts xv4 #a-bi4 ,since the  ,apostolic

 ,council dealt with the same question  
as that which was  under discussion in  
,galatians1 and since it constituted an 
important  step in ,paul's relations    
with the original apostles1 it is a     
little  difficult to see how ,paul could
 have omitted it from the ,epistle4     
,this objection has often weighed       
against the identification of ,gal4  ii4
 #a-aj with the famine visit4 ,but in   
recent years the objection  has been    
removed by the hypothesis which places  
the writing of  ,galatians actually     
before the ,apostolic ,council2         
obviously ,paul  could not be expected  
to mention the ,council if the ,council 
had not  yet taken place4 ,this early   
dating of ,galatians has been advocated 
by a ,german ,roman ,catholic scholar1  
,weber1#dc and recently it has  won the 
support of men of widely divergent      
points of view1 such as  ,emmet1#dd     
,kirsopp ,lake1#de ,ramsay1#df and      
,plooij4#dg ,of course  this hypothesis 
depends absolutely upon the correctness 

of the  ,south ,galatian theory of the  
address of the ,epistle1 which finds    
the ,churches of ,galatia of ,gal4 i4 #b
 in ,pisidian ,antioch1 ,iconium1       
,lystra and ,derbe2 for the churches in 
,north ,galatia1 if there were  any     
such1 were not founded till after the   
,apostolic ,council 7,acts  xvi4 #f74dh 
#dc ,die ,abfassung des ,galaterbriefs  
vor dem ,apostelkonzil1 #aijj4      #dd 
,galatians the ,earliest of the ,pauline
 ,epistles1 in    ,expositor1 #gth      
,series1 vol4 ix1 #aiaj1 pp4 #bdb-bed   
7reprinted in    ,the ,eschatological   
,question in the ,gospels1 #aiaa1 pp4   
#aia-bji72    ,st4 ,paul's ,epistle to  
the ,galatians1 #aiab1 pp4 xiv-xxii4    
#de ,the ,earlier ,epistles of ,st4     
,paul1 #aiaa1 pp4 #bfe-cjd4 ,in a       
later book1 ,lake has modified his views
 about the relation between             
,galatians and ,acts4 ,the historicity  
of ,acts xv4 #a-bi is now    abandoned4 
,see ,landmarks in the ,history of      
,early ,christianity1    #aibj1 pp4     

#fc-ff4      #df ,ramsay1 ,suggestions  
on the ,history and ,letters of ,st4    
,paul4 ,i4    ,the ,date of the         
,galatian ,letter1 in ,expositor1       
,,viii1 v1 #aiac1 pp4    #abg-ade4      
#dg ,plooij1 ,de chronologie van het    
leven van ,paulus1 #aiah1 pp4           
#aaa-adj4      #dh ,maurice ,jones 7,the
 ,date of the ,epistle to the           
,galatians1    in ,expositor1 ,,viii1   
vi1 #aiac1 pp4 #aic-bjh7 has adduced    
from the    ,book of ,acts various      
arguments against the early date of     
,galatians1    which1 though worthy of  
attention1 are not quite decisive4      
,one objection to the early dating of   
,galatians is derived from  the close   
relation between that epistle and the   
,epistle to the  ,romans4 ,if ,galatians
 was written before the ,apostolic      
,council it  is the earliest of the     
extant epistles of ,paul and is         
separated by  a period of some six or   
eight years from the epistles of the    
third  missionary journey with which it 

has ordinarily been grouped4 ,thus  the 
order of the ,epistles would be         
,galatians1 #a and #b ,thessalonians1   
#a and #b ,corinthians1 ,romans4 ,this  
order seems to tear asunder  the        
epistles which naturally belong         
together4 ,the objection was  partially 
overcome by a bold hypothesis of ,lake1 
who suggested  that the ,epistle to the 
,romans was first composed at an early  
time  as an encyclical letter1 and that 
later1 being modified by the  addition  
of a ,roman address and other suitable  
details1 it was sent  to the ,church at 
,rome4#di ,on this hypothesis ,galatians
 and the  substance of ,romans would be 
kept together because both would be     
placed early4 ,the hypothesis can appeal
 to the interesting textual  phenomenon 
in ,rom4 i4 #g1 where the words in ,rome
 are omitted by  a few witnesses to the 
text4 ,but the evidence is insufficient4
 ,and  even if ,lake's hypothesis were  
correct1 it would not altogether        
overcome the difficulty2 for both       

,galatians and ,romans would be  removed
 from what has usually been regarded as 
their natural  position among the       
epistles of the third missionary        
journey4  ,in reply1 it could be said   
that reconstructions of an author's     
development1 unless supported by plain  
documentary evidence1 are  seldom       
absolutely certain2 the simplicity of #a
 and #b ,thessalonians1  as over against
 the great soteriological epistles1     
,galatians1 #a  and #b ,corinthians1    
,romans1 is no doubt due to the         
immaturity of  the ,thessalonian ,church
 rather than to any immaturity in       
,paul's  thinking4 ,there is therefore  
no absolutely decisive objection        
against putting the ,epistle to the     
,galatians1 with its developed          
soteriology1 before the ,thessalonian   
,epistles4      #di ,lake1 ,the ,earlier
 ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul1 #aiaa1 pp4    
#cfa-cgj4    ,on the whole1 it may be   
said that the identification of ,gal4   
ii4  #a-aj with ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4 #be 

is perhaps most plausible when it is    
connected with the early dating of      
,galatians1 before the ,apostolic       
,council4 ,but that identification1     
whether with or without the early       
dating of the ,epistle1 must now be     
considered on its merits4 ,is ,gal4  ii4
 #a-aj to be identified with the famine 
visit of ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4  #be1 or   
with the ,apostolic ,council of ,acts   
xv8    ,the former identification       
possesses one obvious advantage--by it  
the  second visit in ,galatians is the  
same as the second visit in ,acts2      
whereas if ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj is identified
 with ,acts xv4 #a-bi ,paul has  passed 
over the famine visit without mention4  
,the identification  with the famine    
visit may therefore conveniently be     
considered first4    ,according to this 
identification1 ,paul had two           
conferences with the  ,jerusalem        
leaders1 one at the time of the famine  
visit and one some  years afterwards at 
the time of the ,apostolic ,council4    

,could the  second conference           
conceivably have followed thus upon the 
former8 ,if  the conference between     
,paul and the ,jerusalem leaders        
described in  ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj took place
 at the time of the famine visit1 then  
would  not the ,apostolic ,council seem 
to be a mere meaningless repetition  of 
the former conference8 ,if the matter of
 ,gentile freedom had  already been     
settled 7,gal4 ii4 #a-aj7 at the famine 
visit1 how could  it come up again de   
novo at the ,apostolic ,council8        
,this objection is by no means          
insuperable4 ,the meeting described  in 
,gal4 ii4 #a-aj may have been merely a  
private meeting between  ,paul and the  
original apostles4 ,although the        
presence of ,titus1 the  uncircumcised  
,gentile1 was no doubt a matter of      
public knowledge1  it need not          
necessarily have given rise to any      
public discussion1  since it was not    
unprecedented1 ,cornelius also having   
been received  into the ,church without 

circumcision4 ,but if the famine visit  
brought merely a private conference     
between ,paul and the original          
apostles1 ,gentile freedom was still    
open to attack1 especially if1  after   
the famine visit1 there was 7as is in   
any case probable7 an  influx of strict 
legalists into the ,christian community4
 ,there  was no public pronouncement of 
the original apostles to which  the     
advocates of freedom could appeal4      
,there was therefore still  urgent need 
of a public council such as the one     
described in ,acts  xv4 #a-bi1          
especially since that council dealt not 
only with the  general question of      
,gentile freedom but also with the      
problem of  mixed communities where     
,jews and ,gentiles were living         
together4 ,the  ,apostolic ,council1    
therefore1 may well have taken place in 
the way  described in ,acts xv4 #a-bi   
even if the conference of ,gal4 ii4     
#a-aj  had been held some years before4 
,no absolutely decisive objection1      

therefore1 has yet been found  against  
the identification of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj   
with ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4  #be4 ,but the 
prima facie evidence has usually been   
regarded as  favoring the alternative   
identification1 since ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj   
bears  much more resemblance to ,acts   
xv4 #a-bi than it does to ,acts xi4     
#cj2 xii4 #be4 ,resemblance to ,acts xi4
 #cj2 xii4 #be is not1 indeed1          
altogether lacking4 ,in both ,galatians 
ii4 #a-aj and ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4  #be1 
,barnabas is represented as going up    
with ,paul to ,jerusalem2 in  both      
passages there is reference to gifts for
 the ,jerusalem ,church2  and the       
revelation referred to in ,gal4 ii4 #b  
as the occasion of the  journey may be  
discovered in the revelation of the     
famine made to  ,agabus 7,acts xi4 #bh74
 ,but the relief of the ,jerusalem      
,church1 which  is put as the sole      
purpose of the journey in ,acts xi4 #cj2
 xii4 #be1  is quite subordinate in     
,gal4 ii4 #a-aj2 ,barnabas is with ,paul

 in ,acts  xv4 #a-bi just as much as he 
is in ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4 #be2 and it   
may  be questioned whether in ,gal4 ii4 
#b it is not more natural to think  of a
 revelation coming to ,paul rather than 
one coming through the  mouth of        
,agabus4 ,the strongest argument1       
however1 for identifying  ,gal4 ii4     
#a-aj with ,acts ,,xv4 #a-bi is that the
 main purpose of  ,paul's visit seems to
 be the same according to both passages2
  according to both the matter of       
circumcision of ,gentiles was under     
discussion1 and according to both the   
result was a triumph for  the cause of  
freedom4 ,this identification must now  
be considered4  ,various objections have
 been raised against it4 ,these         
objections  lead1 according to the point
 of view of the objector1 either to an  
acceptance of the alternative           
identification 7with ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4
  #be7 or else to a rejection of the    
historicity of the ,book of ,acts4      
,the first objection is derived from the

 fact that if ,gal4 ii4  #a-aj is to be 
identified with ,acts ,,xv4 #a-bi1 ,paul
 has passed over  the famine visit      
without mention4 ,could he have done so 
honestly1  if that visit had really     
occurred8 ,in the first two chapters of 
,galatians ,paul is establishing the    
independence of his apostolic           
authority2 he had not1 he says1 as the  
,judaizers maintained1  received his    
authority through mediation of the      
original apostles4  ,at first1 he says1 
he came into no effective contact with  
the  apostles2 it was three years after 
his conversion before he saw  any of    
them2 then he saw only ,peter 7and      
,james7 and that only for  fifteen days4
 ,then he went away into the regions of 
,syria and of  ,cilicia without ever    
becoming known by face to the ,churches 
of  ,juda2 then after fourteen years    
again he went up to ,jerusalem 7,gal4   
ii4 #a74 ,is it not the very point of   
the passage that after his  departure to
 ,syria and ,cilicia it was fourteen    

long years before  he again went up to  
,jerusalem8 ,would not his entire       
argument be  invalidated if there were  
an unmentioned visit to ,jerusalem      
between  the first visit 7,gal4 i4 #ah1 
#ai7 and the visit of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj8  
,if such a visit had taken place1 would 
he not have had to mention  it in order 
to place it in the proper light as he   
had done in the  case of the first      
visit8 ,by omitting to mention the visit
 in a  context where he is carefully    
tracing the history of his relations    
with the ,jerusalem leaders1 would he   
not be exposing himself to  the charge  
of dishonest suppression of facts8 ,such
 considerations  have led a great number
 of investigators to reject the         
historicity  of the famine visit2 there 
never could have been1 they insist1 a   
visit between the first visit and the   
visit of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj2 for  if there 
had been1 ,paul would have been obliged 
to mention it1 not  only by his own     
honesty1 but also because of the        

impossibility  of deception4 ,this is   
one of the points where the narrative in
  ,acts has been most insistently       
criticized4 ,here and there1 indeed1    
there have been discordant notes in the 
chorus of criticism2 the  insufficiency 
of the objection has been admitted now  
and then even  by those who are far     
removed from any concern for the defense
 of  the ,book of ,acts4 ,baur himself1 
despite all his ,tbingen severity  of   
criticism1 was clear-sighted enough not 
to lay stress upon this  particular     
objection2#ej and in recent years ,j4   
,weiss has been  equally discerning4#ea 
,in ,galatians ,paul is not giving a    
complete  enumeration of his visits to  
,jerusalem1 but merely singling out     
those details which had formed the basis
 of the ,judaizers' attack1  or afforded
 peculiar support to his own            
contentions4 ,apparently the  ,judaizers
 had misrepresented the first visit2    
that is the time1  they had said1 when  
,paul came under the authority of the   

original  apostles4 ,in answer to this  
attack ,paul is obliged to deal         
carefully  with that first visit2 it    
came three years after the conversion1  
he  says1 and it lasted only fifteen    
days--surely not long enough to  make   
,paul a disciple of ,peter4 ,then ,paul 
went away into the regions  of ,syria   
and ,cilicia4 ,probably1 for the first  
readers1 who were  familiar with the    
outlines of ,paul's life1 this departure
 for ,syria  and ,cilicia clearly meant 
the entrance by ,paul into his          
distinctive  ,gentile work4 ,he was well
 launched upon his ,gentile work1 fully 
engaged in the proclamation of his      
gospel1 before he had ever had  such    
contact with the original apostles as   
could possibly have given  him that     
gospel4 ,at this point1 as ,j4 ,weiss#eb
 well observes1 there  is a transition  
in the argument4 ,the argument based on 
lack of  contact with the original      
apostles has been finished1 and now     
gives  place to an entirely different   

argument4 ,in the first chapter of      
,galatians ,paul has been showing that  
at first he had no such contact  with   
the original apostles as could have made
 him a disciple of  theirs2 now1 in the 
second chapter he proceeds to show that 
when he  did come into conference with  
them1 they themselves recognized that   
he was no disciple of theirs but an     
independent apostle4 ,apparently  this  
conference1 like the first visit1 had   
been misrepresented  by the ,judaizers1 
and hence needed to be singled out for  
special  treatment4 ,it must be admitted
 that ,paul is interested in the late   
date at which it occurred--fourteen     
years after the first visit or  fourteen
 years after the conversion4 ,probably1 
therefore1 it was the  first real       
conference which ,paul held with the    
original apostles on  the subject of his
 ,gentile work4 ,if the famine visit had
 involved  such a conference1 probably  
,paul would have mentioned that visit4  
,but if 7as is not improbable on        

independent grounds7 the apostles  were 
away from ,jerusalem at the time of the 
famine visit1 and if  that visit        
occurred long after ,paul had been well 
launched upon his  distinctive work1 and
 if it had given the ,judaizers so      
little basis  for their contentions that
 they had not thought it worth while to 
draw it into the discussion1 then ,paul 
was not obliged to mention  it4 ,paul is
 not constructing an argument which     
would hold against  all possible        
attacks1 but rather is meeting the      
attacks which had  actually been        
launched4 ,in the second chapter1 having
 finished  proving that in the decisive 
early period before he was well engaged 
in his distinctive work there was not   
even any extended contact with  the     
original apostles at all1 he proceeds to
 the telling argument  that the very men
 who were appealed to by the ,judaizers 
themselves  had admitted that he was    
entirely independent of them and that   
they  had nothing to add to him4 ,if the

 famine visit had occurred in the  early
 period1 or if1 whenever it occurred1 it
 had involved the  important event of a 
conference with the apostles about the  
,pauline  gospel1 in either case ,paul  
would probably have been obliged to     
mention it4 ,but1 as it is1 the visit1  
according to ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4  #be1  
did not occur until ,paul had already   
been engaged in the ,gentile  work1 and 
there is no reason to suppose that it   
involved any contact  with the original 
apostles4 ,the omission of the famine   
visit from  ,galatians1 therefore1 as a 
visit distinct from ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj1    
does  not absolutely require either the 
identification of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj  with 
that famine visit or the denial of the  
historicity of ,acts4      #ej ,baur1   
,paulus1 #bte ,aufl41 #ahff1 pp4        
#acj-acb 7,english    ,translation1     
,paul i1 #ahgc1 pp4 #aah-abj74 ,baur    
does maintain that    ,gal4 ii4 #a      
renders improbable a second visit of    
,paul to ,jerusalem    before the       

conference with the apostles which is   
narrated in ,gal4    ii4 #a1 but points 
out that in itself the verse is capable 
of a    different interpretation4       
#ea ,j4 ,weiss1 ,urchristentum1 #aiad1  
p4 #adg1 ,anm4 #b4      #eb ,loc4 cit4  
,certain other difficulties emerge1     
however1 when ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj is        
compared with ,acts xv4 #a-bi in detail4
    ,in the first place1 the leaders of 
the ,jerusalem ,church1 it is said1  are
 represented in ,acts xv4 #a-bi as      
maintaining ,pauline principles1        
whereas in ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj it appears   
that there was really a  fundamental    
difference between them and ,paul4 ,this
 difficulty  constitutes an objection   
not against the identification of ,gal4 
ii4  #a-aj with ,acts ,,xv4 #a-bi but   
against the historicity of ,acts1 for if
  at any time there was a really        
fundamental difference of principle     
between ,paul and the original apostles 
then the whole representation  in ,acts 
is radically incorrect4 ,but the        

objection disappears  altogether when   
,galatians is correctly interpreted4    
,the ,epistle to  the ,galatians does   
not represent the conference between    
,paul and the  pillars of the ,jerusalem
 ,church as resulting in a cold         
agreement to  disagree2 on the contrary 
it represents those leaders as giving to
  ,paul and ,barnabas the right hand of 
fellowship4 ,and ,gal4 ii4 #aa-ba1      
rightly interpreted1 attests positively 
a real unity of principle as  existing  
between ,paul and ,peter4    ,the one   
objection that remains against the      
identification of ,gal4  ii4 #a-aj with 
,acts ,,xv4 #a-bi concerns the          
,apostolic ,decree of ,acts  ,,xv4 #bh1 
#bi 7compare ,acts ,,xv4 #ai1 #bj2 xxi4 
#be74 ,according to the  ,epistle to the
 ,galatians the apostles at the time of 
the conference  added nothing to ,paul  
7,gal4 ii4 #f72 according to the ,book  
of ,acts1  it is argued1 they added     
something very important indeed--namely1
  the requirements of the ,apostolic    

,decree that the ,gentile ,christians   
should refrain from things offered to   
idols and from blood and from  things   
strangled and from fornication4 ,since  
these requirements are  partly at least 
ceremonial1 they seem to constitute an  
exception to  the general principle of  
,gentile freedom1 and therefore an      
addition  to ,paul's gospel4 ,if when   
,paul presented to the original apostles
  the gospel which he was preaching     
among the ,gentiles1 involving the  free
 offer of salvation apart from the ,law1
 the apostles emended  that gospel by   
requiring at least certain parts of the 
ceremonial  ,law1 were they not adding  
something to ,paul8    ,but are the     
provisions of the decree really         
ceremonial8 ,apparently  they are in    
part ceremonial if the so-called        
,neutral text attested  by the ,codex   
,sinaiticus and the ,codex ,vaticanus be
 correct4  ,according to this text1     
which here lies at the basis of all     
forms of  our ,english ,bible1 blood can

 hardly refer to anything except meat   
that has the blood left in it or else   
blood that might be prepared  separately
 for food2 for things strangled         
certainly refers to a  closely related  
provision of the ceremonial ,law about  
food4 ,but at  this point an interesting
 textual question arises4 ,the so-called
  ,western text of the ,book of ,acts1  
attested by the ,codex ,bezae and  the  
usual companion witnesses1 omits the    
word translated things  strangled or    
what is strangled in ,acts ,,xv4 #bj1   
#bi2 xxi4 #be1 and  in the first two of 
these three passages adds the negative  
form of  the ,golden ,rule4 ,thus the   
,western text reads in ,acts ,,xv4 #bh1 
#bi as  follows3 ,for it has seemed good
 to the ,holy ,spirit and to us to  lay 
no further burden upon you except these 
necessary things--that  you refrain from
 things offered to idols and from blood 
and from  fornication1 and that you do  
not to another whatsoever things you  do
 not wish to be done to you4 ,it is     

generally agreed that the  ,golden ,rule
 has here been added by a copyist2 but  
the omission of  things strangled is    
thought by many modern scholars to      
preserve  the reading of the autograph4 
,if this short text without things      
strangled be correct1 then the          
provisions of the ,decree need not  be  
regarded as ceremonial at all1 but may  
be taken as simply moral4  ,things      
offered to idols may refer to idolatry  
in general2 blood  may refer to murder2 
and fornication may be meant in the most
  general sense4 ,but if the provisions 
of the ,decree were simply  moral1 then 
plainly they did not constitute any     
addition to the  message of freedom     
which ,paul proclaimed among the        
,gentiles4 ,paul  himself had of course 
enjoined upon his converts the necessity
  of leading a true moral life4 ,if when
 the original apostles were  urged by   
the ,judaizers to impose upon the       
,gentile converts the  requirements of  
the ceremonial ,law1 they responded1    

,no2 the only  requirements to be       
imposed upon the ,gentiles are that they
 refrain  from deadly sins like         
idolatry1 murder and fornication1 that  
decision constituted merely a most      
emphatic confirmation of ,paul's  gospel
 of freedom4    ,the textual question   
cannot here be discussed in detail4 ,in 
favor  of the ,western text1 with its   
omission of things strangled1 may  be   
urged not only the general principle of 
textual criticism that  the shorter     
reading is to be preferred to the       
longer1 but also the  special           
consideration that in this particular   
passage the shorter  reading seems to   
account for the origin of the two       
additions2 7#a7  the word translated    
things strangled1 and 7#b7 the ,golden  
,rule4 ,the  short text1 supposing it to
 be the original1 was ambiguous2 it     
might  be taken either as ceremonial    
7blood meaning the eating of blood7  or 
as moral 7blood meaning the shedding of 
blood or murder74  ,those copyists who  

took it as ceremonial1 it is maintained1
 fixed  the meaning by adding things    
strangled 7because animals that were    
strangled had the blood still in them1  
so that the eating of them  constituted 
a violation of the ceremonial ,law72    
whereas those who  took the ,decree as  
moral fixed the meaning by adding the   
,golden ,rule  as the summation of the  
moral law4#ec      #ec ,see ,lake1 op4  
cit41 pp4 #ea-ec4    ,on the other side 
may be urged the connection which seems 
to exist  between the omission of things
 strangled and the manifest gloss       
constituted by the ,golden ,rule4       
,documentary attestation of a short     
text1 without the ,golden ,rule and     
without things strangled1 is            
exceedingly scanty if not               
non-existent--,kirsopp ,lake can point  
only  to the witness of ,irenus4 ,the   
omission of things strangled1           
therefore1 may be only a part of a      
moralizing of the ,decree 7carried  out 
also in the addition of the ,golden     

,rule71 which would be  quite in accord 
with that habit of scribes by which they
 tended  to ignore in the interests of  
moral commonplaces what was special  and
 difficult in the text which they were  
copying4 ,in reply1 ,lake  insists that 
just at the time and at the place where 
the short  text 7without things         
strangled7 was prevalent1 there was a   
food  law for which the long text 7with 
things strangled7 would have  afforded  
welcome support4 ,why should the text   
have been modified  just where in its   
original form it supported the          
prevailing practice  of the ,church8    
,the conclusion is1 ,lake believes1 that
 if the ,western  text prevailed1       
despite the welcome support which would 
have been  afforded by the other text1  
it was because the ,western text was    
correct4#ed      #ed ,op4 cit41 pp4     
#eg-ei4    ,decision as to the textual  
question will depend to a considerable  
extent upon the conclusion which is     
reached with regard to the  ,western    

text as a whole4 ,the radical rejection 
of that text which  was advocated by    
,westcott and ,hort has by no means won 
universal  approval2 a number of recent 
scholars are inclined at least to       
pursue an eclectic course1 adopting now 
the ,western reading and  now the       
,neutral reading on the basis of        
internal evidence in the  individual    
cases4 ,others believe that the ,western
 text and the  ,neutral text are both   
correct1 since the ,western text is     
derived  from an earlier edition of the 
book1 whereas the ,neutral text         
represents a revised edition issued by  
the author himself4#ee ,but  this       
hypothesis affords absolutely no        
assistance in the case of the           
,apostolic ,decree2 for the ,western    
reading 7if it be interpreted in  the   
purely non-ceremonial way7 presents the 
,decree in a light very  different from 
that in which it appears according to   
the ,neutral  reading4 ,it is impossible
 that the author could have contradicted

  himself so directly and in so         
important a matter4 ,therefore1 if  one 
of the two readings is due to the       
author1 the other is due to  some one   
else4 ,cases like this weigh heavily    
against the hypothesis  of two editions 
of the book2 that hypothesis can be     
saved only by  supposing either that the
 ,western documents do not here         
reproduce  correctly the original       
,western form of the book1 or else that 
the  other documents do not here        
reproduce the original revised edition4 
,in other words1 despite the manuscript 
evidence1 the two editions of  the book 
must here be supposed to have been in   
harmony4 ,at any rate1  then1 whether or
 no the hypothesis of two editions be   
accepted1 a  choice must here be made   
between the ,neutral reading and the    
,western  reading2 they cannot both be  
due to the author1 since they are       
contradictory to each other4      #ee   
,an elaborate attempt has recently been 
made by ,zahn1 in    addition to former 

attempts by ,blass and ,hilgenfeld1 to  
reproduce    the original form of the   
,western text1 which ,zahn believes to  
be    the earlier edition of the book4  
,see ,zahn1 ,die ,urausgabe der         
,apostelgeschichte des ,lucas1 #aiaf    
7,forschungen zur ,geschichte des       
neutestamentlichen ,kanons1 ix4 ,teil74 
,on the whole1 it must be said that the 
,western text of the ,book of  ,acts    
does not commend itself1 either as the  
one genuine form of  the book1 or as an 
earlier edition of which the ,neutral   
text is  a revision4 ,the ,western      
readings are interesting2 at times they 
may contain genuine historical          
information2 but it seems unlikely  that
 they are due to the author4 ,here and  
there indeed the ,western  documents may
 preserve a genuine reading which has   
been lost in  all other witnesses to the
 text--even ,westcott and ,hort did not 
altogether exclude such a               
possibility--but in general the high    
estimate which ,westcott and ,hort      

placed upon the ,neutral text is        
justified4 ,thus there is a possibility 
that the short text of the  ,apostolic  
,decree1 without things strangled1 is   
genuine1 but it is  a possibility only4 
,if then1 the ,neutral text of the      
,decree is correct1 so that the         
requirements of the ,decree are partly  
ceremonial1 must the ,book of  ,acts    
here be held to contradict the ,epistle 
to the ,galatians8 ,if the  ,decree     
really was passed at the ,apostolic     
,council1 as ,acts xv4 #bi  represents1 
would ,paul have been obliged to mention
 it in ,gal4 ii4  #a-aj8 ,answering     
these questions in the affirmative1 a   
great many  scholars since the days of  
,baur have regarded the account which   
the  ,book of ,acts gives of the        
,apostolic ,council as radically wrong2 
and  since the book has thus failed to  
approve itself at the point where  it   
runs parallel to a recognized authority1
 it must be distrusted  elsewhere as    
well4 ,the ,apostolic ,council1         

especially the ,apostolic  ,decree1 has 
thus become1 to use a phrase of ,b4 ,w4 
,bacon1 the crux  of apostolic          
history4#ef      #ef ,b4 ,w4 ,bacon1    
,acts versus ,galatians3 the ,crux of   
,apostolic    ,history1 in,american     
,journal of ,theology1 xi1 #aijg1 pp4   
#ded-dgd4    ,see also ,professor       
,harnack on the ,lukan ,narrative1      
ibid41 xiii1    #aiji1 pp4 #ei-gf4      
,it is exceedingly unlikely1 however1 at
 any rate1 that the ,decree  has been   
made up out of whole cloth2 for it does 
not coincide  exactly with the usage of 
the later ,church1 and seems to be      
framed  in view of primitive conditions4
 ,even those who reject the narrative   
of ,acts as it stands1 therefore1 often 
admit that the ,decree was  really      
passed by the early ,jerusalem ,church2 
but they maintain that  it was passed   
after ,paul's departure from ,jerusalem 
and without his  consent4 ,this view is 
thought to be supported by ,acts xxi4   
#be1 where  ,james1 it is said1 is      

represented1 at the time of ,paul's last
 visit  to ,jerusalem1 as calling       
attention to the ,decree as though it   
were  something new4 ,acts xxi4 #be is  
thus thought to preserve a bit of       
primitive tradition which is in         
contradiction to the representation  of 
the fifteenth chapter4 ,of course1      
however1 the verse as it stands  in the 
completed book can only be taken by the 
unsophisticated  reader as referring to 
what ,paul already knew2 and it is a    
grave  question whether the author of   
,acts was unskillful enough to allow    
contradictory representations to stand  
unassimilated in his book1  as the      
hypothesis demands4 ,acts xxi4 #be1     
therefore1 is at any rate  not opposed  
to the view that the ,decree was        
actually passed with the  consent of    
,paul1 as the fifteenth chapter         
represents4    ,but is this             
representation really in contradiction  
to the ,epistle  to the ,galatians8     
,does ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj really exclude the

 ,apostolic  ,decree8 ,in order to      
answer these questions1 it will be      
necessary to  examine the nature of the 
,decree4    ,the ,apostolic ,decree1    
according to ,acts xv4 #a-bi1 did not   
constitute  a definition of what was    
necessary for the salvation of the      
,gentile  ,christians1 but was an       
attempt to solve the problem of a       
limited  group of mixed communities     
where ,jews and ,gentiles were living   
together4 ,such seems to be the         
implication of the difficult verse1     
,acts xv4 #ba1 where ,james1 after he   
has proposed the substance of the       
,decree1 says1 ,for ,moses has from     
ancient generations in the several      
cities those who proclaim him1 being    
read in the synagogues every  ,sabbath4 
,these words seem to mean that since    
there are ,jews in the  cities1 and     
since they are devoted to the ,law of   
,moses1 the ,gentile  ,christians1 in   
order to avoid offending them1 ought to 
refrain  from certain of those features 

of the ,gentile manner of life which    
the ,jews would regard as most          
repulsive4 ,the ,law of ,moses had been 
read in the cities from ancient         
generations2 it was venerable2 it       
deserved at least respect4 ,such a      
respectful attitude toward the  ,jewish 
way of life would contribute not only to
 the peace of the  ,church but also to  
the winning of the non-,christian ,jews4
    ,was this procedure contrary to the 
principles of ,paul8 ,he himself  tells 
us that it was not4 ,for though ,i was  
free from all men1 he  says1 ,i brought 
myself under bondage to all1 that ,i    
might gain the  more4 ,and to the ,jews 
,i became as a ,jew1 that ,i might gain 
,jews2  to them that are under the law1 
as under the law1 not being myself      
under the law1 that ,i might gain them  
that are under the law2 to  them that   
are without law1 as without law1 not    
being without law  to ,god1 but under   
law to ,christ1 that ,i might gain them 
that are  without law4 ,to the weak ,i  

became weak1 that ,i might gain the     
weak2  ,i am become all things to all   
men1 that ,i may by all means save      
some4#eg ,the ,apostolic ,decree was    
simply a particular case of  becoming to
 the ,jews as a ,jew that ,jews might be
 gained4 ,indeed  it was a rather mild  
case of that kind2 and the conjecture   
may be  ventured that ,paul was often   
very much more accommodating than the   
,decree would demand4 ,paul was not the 
man to insist upon blatant  disregard of
 ,jewish feelings where ,jews were to be
 won to ,christ4      #eg #a ,cor4 ix4  
#ai-bb1 ,american ,revised ,version4    
,it must be remembered that ,paul1      
according to his ,epistles1 did  not    
demand that ,jewish ,christians should  
give up keeping the ,law1  but only     
required them not to force the keeping  
of the ,law upon  the ,gentiles4 ,no    
doubt the observance of the ,law on the 
part of  ,jewish ,christians was to be  
very different in spirit from their     
pre-,christian legalism2 they were no   

longer to regard the ,law as  a means of
 salvation4 ,but after salvation had    
been obtained1 they  might well believe 
that it was ,god's will for them to     
continue to  live as ,jews2 and ,paul1  
according to his ,epistles1 had no      
objection  to that belief4 ,but how were
 the ,jewish ,christians to carry out   
their observance of the ,law8 ,various  
requirements of the ,law were  held to  
imply that ,israelites should keep      
separate from ,gentiles4  ,how then     
could the ,jewish ,christians live in   
close brotherly  intercourse with the   
,gentile members of the ,christian      
community  without transgressing the    
,law of ,moses8 ,there is no reason to  
believe that ,paul from the beginning   
had a hard and fast solution of  this   
problem4 ,undoubtedly1 the tendency of  
his practice led toward  the complete   
abandonment of the ceremonial ,law in   
the interests of  ,christian unity      
between ,jews and ,gentiles4 ,he was    
very severe upon  those ,jewish         

,christians who1 though convinced in    
their hearts of the  necessity of giving
 precedence to the new principle of     
unity1 yet  separated themselves from   
the ,gentiles through fear of men 7,gal4
  ii4 #aa-ba74 ,but there is no reason  
to think that he condemned on  principle
 those who truly believed that ,jewish  
,christians should  still keep the ,law4
 ,with regard to these matters he was   
apparently  content to wait for the     
clearer guidance of the ,spirit of ,god1
  which would finally work out the unity
 of the ,church4 ,meanwhile  the        
,apostolic ,decree was an attempt to    
solve the problem of mixed  communities2
 and that attempt was in harmony with   
the principles  which ,paul enunciated  
in #a ,cor4 ix4 #ai-bb4    ,moreover1   
the ,apostolic ,decree was in accord    
with ,paul's principle  of regard for   
the weaker brother 7#a ,cor4 viii2 ,rom4
 xiv74 ,in  ,corinth1 certain brethren  
were offended by the eating of meat     
which  had been offered to idols4 ,paul 

himself was able to eat such food2  for 
he recognized that the idols were       
nothing4 ,but for some of the  members  
of the ,christian community the         
partaking of such food would  mean the  
deadly sin of idolatry2 and out of      
regard for them ,paul is  ready to      
forego his freedom4 ,the case was very  
similar in the mixed  communities       
contemplated in the ,apostolic ,decree4 
,the similarity1  of course1 appears on 
the surface in the first prohibition of 
the  ,decree1 which concerns things     
offered to idols4 ,but the two other    
prohibitions about food are not really  
very different4 ,the use of  blood was  
intimately associated with heathen      
cults1 and the eating  of meat with the 
blood still in it 7things strangled7    
would also1  because of deep-seated     
religious ideas1 seem to a devout ,jew  
to  involve idolatry4 ,it is very       
doubtful1 therefore1 whether those      
prohibitions of the ,decree which we are
 accustomed to designate as  ceremonial 

were felt to be ceremonial by those for 
whose benefit  the ,decree was adopted4 
,they were probably not felt to be      
ceremonial  any more than the           
prohibition of things offered to idols  
was felt to  be ceremonial by the weaker
 brethren at ,corinth4 ,rather they were
  felt to involve the deadly sin of     
idolatry4    ,finally1 the ,apostolic   
,decree was of limited range of         
application2  it was addressed1 not to  
,gentile ,christians generally1 but only
  to those in ,antioch1 ,syria1 and     
,cilicia 7,acts xv4 #bc74 ,the ,book  of
 ,acts1 it is true1 does declare1 after 
the mention of ,derbe and  ,lystra in   
connection with the beginning of the    
second missionary  journey1 that ,paul  
and ,silas as they went on their way    
through  the cities 444 delivered them  
the decrees to keep which had been      
ordained of the apostles and elders that
 were at ,jerusalem 7,acts  xvi4 #d74   
,according to this passage the          
observance of the ,decree  does seem to 

have been extended into ,lycaonia1 and  
thus beyond  the limits set forth in the
 ,decree itself4 ,but if ,paul chose to 
make use of the document beyond the     
range originally contemplated1  that    
does not alter the fact that originally 
the ,jerusalem ,church  undertook to    
deal only with ,antioch and ,syria and  
,cilicia4 ,in ,acts  xxi4 #be1 indeed1  
the reference of ,james to the ,decree  
does not  mention the geographical      
limitation4 ,but ,james was thinking no 
doubt  particularly of those regions    
where there were the largest bodies  of 
,jews1 and he does not say that the     
,jerusalem ,church1 even if the  ,decree
 represented its own desires for all    
,gentiles1 had actually  sent the       
,decree to all4 ,the general reference  
in ,acts xxi4 #be may  therefore fairly 
be interpreted in the light of the more 
particular  information given in ,acts  
xv4 #bc4 ,it is thus unnecessary to     
follow  ,wendt1 who1 after a careful    
examination of all the objections which 

have been urged against the historicity 
of the ,decree1 concludes  that the     
,decree was actually passed by the      
,jerusalem ,church in the  presence of  
,paul as the ,book of ,acts represents1 
but supposes  that the author of ,acts  
has erred in giving the decision a wider
  range of application than was really  
contemplated4#eh ,a correct             
interpretation of the passages in       
question will remove even this  last    
vestige of objection to the ,lucan      
account4      #eh ,wendt1 ,die          
,apostelgeschichte1 #aiac1 in ,meyer1   
,kritisch-exegetischer ,kommentar ber   
das ,neue ,testament1 #ite    ,aufl41 p4
 #bcg4    ,but if the ,decree was       
addressed only to ,antioch and ,syria   
and  ,cilicia1 it was not imposed upon  
specifically ,pauline churches4 ,the    
,gentile work at ,antioch had not been  
started by ,paul1 and it is a  question 
how far he regarded the churches of     
,syria and ,cilicia in  general as      
belonging to his peculiar province4     

,undoubtedly he had  labored long in    
those regions1 but others had shared his
 labors and  in some places had even    
preceded him4 ,these other missionaries 
had  come from ,jerusalem4 ,paul may    
well therefore have recognized the      
authority of the ,jerusalem leaders over
 the churches of ,syria and  ,cilicia in
 a way which would not have been in     
place at ,ephesus or  ,corinth1         
especially since the ,jewish ,christian 
element in the ,syrian  and ,cilician   
churches was probably very strong4      
,the adoption of the ,apostolic ,decree 
by the ,jerusalem ,church was  thus not 
derogatory in general to the apostolic  
dignity of ,paul1  or contrary to his   
principles4 ,but is the ,decree         
excluded1 in  particular1 by the words  
of ,paul in ,galatians8 ,paul says that 
the  pillars of the ,jerusalem ,church  
added nothing#ei to him 7,gal4 ii4  #f74
 ,the meaning of these words must be    
examined with some care4      #ei  4    
,undoubtedly the word here translated   

added--it may perhaps be  better        
translated imparted nothing to me in    
addition--is to be  understood in       
conjunction with ,gal4 ii4 #b1 where the
 same ,greek word  is used1 but without 
the preposition which means in addition4
  ,the sense of the two verses--they are
 separated by the important  digression 
about ,titus--is thus as follows3 ,when 
,i laid my gospel  before the leaders1  
they laid nothing before me in addition4
 ,that  is1 they declared1 after        
listening to ,paul's gospel1 that they  
had  nothing to add to it2 ,christ had  
given it to ,paul directly2 it was      
sufficient and complete4 ,the question1 
therefore1 in connection  with the      
,apostolic ,decree is not whether the   
,decree was or was not  something       
important that the ,jerusalem leaders   
imparted to ,paul1  but only whether it 
constituted an addition to his gospel4  
,if it  constituted an addition to his  
gospel1 then it is excluded by  ,paul's 
words in ,galatians1 and is             

unhistorical4 ,but as it has been       
interpreted above1 it certainly did not 
constitute an addition to  ,paul's      
gospel4 ,paul's gospel consisted in the 
offer of salvation to  the ,gentiles    
through faith alone apart from the works
 of the law4  ,the ,jerusalem leaders   
recognized that gospel2 they had        
absolutely  nothing to add to it2 ,paul 
had revealed the way of salvation to    
the ,gentiles exactly as it had been    
revealed to him by ,god4 ,but  the      
recognition of the ,pauline gospel of   
salvation by faith alone  did not solve 
all the practical problems of the       
,christian life2 in  particular it did  
not solve the problem of the mixed      
churches4 ,it  would have been unnatural
 if the conference had not proceeded to 
a consideration of such problems1 and   
,paul's words do not at all  exclude    
such consideration4    ,certainly some  
sort of public pronouncement on the part
 of the  ,jerusalem leaders was         
imperatively demanded4 ,the ,judaizers  

had made  trouble in ,antioch1 ,syria1  
and ,cilicia--that much of the account  
in ,acts is generally admitted to be    
historical and is certainly  necessary  
to account for the very fact that ,paul 
went to ,jerusalem1  the revelation     
which came to him being given by ,god in
 relation  to a very definite situation4
 ,against his inclination ,paul went  to
 ,jerusalem in order to stop the        
propaganda of the ,judaizers by         
obtaining a pronouncement from the very 
authorities to which they  appealed4 ,is
 it to be supposed that he returned to  
,antioch without  the pronouncement     
which he had sought8 ,if he had done so 
his journey  would have been in vain2   
the ,judaizers would have continued to  
make trouble exactly as before4 ,some   
kind of public pronouncement  was       
therefore evidently sought by ,paul     
himself from the ,jerusalem  leaders4   
,no doubt the very seeking of such a    
pronouncement was  open to              
misunderstanding2 it might seem to      

involve subordination  of ,paul to the  
authorities to whom apparently he was   
appealing  as to a higher instance4     
,paul was keenly aware of such dangers1 
and waited for definite guidance of ,god
 before he decided to make  the journey4
 ,but if he had come back from          
,jerusalem without any  such            
pronouncement of the authorities as     
would demonstrate the  falsity of the   
,judaizers' appeal to them1 then the    
disadvantages  of the conference would  
have been incurred in vain4 ,in all     
probability1 therefore1 the conference  
of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj1 if it  took place at
 the time reached by the narrative at   
the beginning  of the fifteenth chapter 
of ,acts1 resulted in a pronouncement   
from  the ,jerusalem ,church4 ,and the  
,apostolic ,decree was just such a      
pronouncement as might have been        
expected4 ,it was public2 it was  an    
emphatic vindication of ,gentile freedom
 and an express rebuke  of the          
,judaizers2 and it dealt with some at   

least of the practical  difficulties    
which would result from the presence of 
,jews and  ,gentiles in the churches of 
,syria and ,cilicia4    ,the            
identification of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj with  
,acts xv4 #a-bi1 therefore1  does not   
raise insuperable difficulties against  
the acceptance as  historical of the    
narrative in ,acts4 ,but it must be     
remembered that  the alternative        
identification--with ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4
 #be--;is also  possible4 ,the          
comparison between ,acts and ,galatians1
 therefore1 has  certainly not resulted 
disastrously for the ,book of ,acts2    
there are  three ways in which ,acts can
 be shown to be in harmony with ,paul4  
,these three possibilities may now      
conveniently be summed up in the  light 
of the examination of them in the       
preceding pages4    7#a7 ,galatians ii4 
#a-aj may be regarded as an account of  
the  famine visit of ,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4
 #be2 and on the basis of this          
identification the ,epistle may be dated

 before the ,apostolic ,council  of     
,acts xv4 #a-bi4 ,the course of events  
would then be somewhat as  follows3     
,first there was a private conference   
between ,paul and  the original apostles
 7,gal4 ii4 #a-aj7 at the time of the   
famine  visit 7,acts xi4 #cj2 xii4 #be74
 ,then followed the first missionary    
journey of ,paul and ,barnabas to       
,southern ,galatia 7,acts xiii1 xiv74   
,that journey brought a great influx of 
,gentiles into the ,church  and aroused 
the active opposition of the ,judaizers4
 ,the trouble  seems to have been       
accentuated by the coming to ,antioch of
 certain  men from ,james 7,gal4 ii4    
#aa-ac74 ,it is not clear whether they  
themselves were to blame1 or whether1 if
 they were1 they had any  commission    
from ,james4 ,at any rate1 ,peter was   
induced to give up  the table           
companionship with ,gentile ,christians 
which formerly he  had practiced at     
,antioch1 and ,barnabas also was carried
 away4 ,paul  rebuked ,peter publicly4  

,but the ,judaizers continued to disturb
  the peace of the ,church1 and even    
demanded1 as a thing absolutely         
necessary to salvation1 that the        
,gentile ,christians should be          
circumcised and should keep the ,law of 
,moses4 ,the ,judaizing  activity       
extended also into ,galatia1 and ,paul  
wrote the ,epistle  to the ,galatians in
 the midst of the conflict4 ,at ,antioch
 it was  finally determined to bring the
 matter to the attention of the         
,jerusalem leaders in order to show that
 the ,judaizers had no right  to appeal 
to those leaders1 and in order to       
silence the ,judaizers by  a public     
pronouncement of the ,jerusalem ,church4
 ,a revelation induced  ,paul to agree  
to this plan4 ,the result was the       
,apostolic ,council of  ,acts xv4 #a-bi4
    ,undoubtedly this account of the    
matter overcomes certain  difficulties4 
,it has won considerable support1 and   
can no longer be  regarded as a mere    
apologetic expedient4    7#b7 ,the      

,western text of the ,apostolic ,decree 
may be regarded as  correct4 ,the       
,decree may then be taken as forbidding 
only the three  deadly sins of idolatry1
 murder1 and fornication1 so that it    
cannot  by any possibility be taken as a
 limitation of ,gentile freedom or  an  
addition to ,paul's gospel of           
justification by faith alone4 ,this     
solution has been adopted by ,von       
,harnack and others2 and by ,kirsopp    
,lake1#fj certainly without any         
apologetic motive1 it has actually  been
 combined with 7#a74      #fj ,in ,the  
,earlier ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul1 #aiaa4
 ,it will be    remembered that ,lake   
has now radically modified his views4   
,see    above1 p4 #ha1 footnote #c4     
7#c7 ,finally1 ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj being    
identified with ,acts xv4 #a-bi1 and    
the ,neutral text of the ,apostolic     
,decree being adopted1 harmony  between 
,acts and ,galatians may be established 
by that interpretation  of both passages
 which has been proposed above4         

,according to  this interpretation1 the 
,decree was not regarded as necessary to
  salvation or intended as an addition  
to ,paul's gospel1 but was an  attempt  
to solve the special and temporary      
problem of the mixed  communities in    
,syria and ,cilicia4    ,this last      
solution being adopted provisionally    
7though 7#a7 certainly  has much in its 
favor71 the outcome of the ,apostolic   
,council must be  considered in         
connection with the events that         
followed4 ,apparently  ,paul in         
,galatians is telling only what happened
 in a private  conference between       
himself and the ,jerusalem leaders1 the 
account  of the public action of the    
,church being found in ,acts4 ,james and
  ,peter and ,john recognized the       
independence of ,paul's apostleship2    
,paul had been intrusted with the       
apostleship to the ,gentiles as  ,peter 
with that to the circumcision4 ,after   
listening to ,paul's  account of the    
wonderful works of ,god by which his    

ministry had  been blessed1 and after   
coming into direct contact with the     
grace  which had been given to him1 the 
pillars of the ,jerusalem ,church  gave 
to him and ,barnabas the right hand of  
fellowship that they  should go to the  
,gentiles while the ,jerusalem leaders  
should go to  the circumcision4 ,this   
division of labor has often been        
egregiously  misinterpreted1 especially 
by the ,tbingen school and all those in 
subsequent years who have not been able 
to throw off the shackles  of           
,tbingenism4 ,the question has often    
been asked whether the  division was    
meant geographically or                 
ethnographically4 ,was ,paul to  preach 
everywhere outside of ,palestine both to
 ,jews and ,gentiles1  while the        
original apostles were to labor in      
,palestine only2 or  was ,paul to preach
 to ,gentiles wherever found1 while the 
original  apostles were to labor for    
,jews wherever found8 ,in other words1  
to  whose province were assigned the    

,jews of the ,dispersion--to the        
province of ,paul and ,barnabas1 or to  
the province of the original  apostles8 
,it has sometimes been maintained that  
,paul understood the  division          
geographically1 but that the ,jerusalem 
leaders understood  it ethnographically2
 so that ,peter transgressed ,paul's    
geographical  interpretation when he    
went to labor in ,antioch4 ,but the very
  raising of the whole question is in   
itself a fundamental error4 ,the        
division was not meant in an exclusive  
or negative sense at all2 it  was not   
intended to prevent ,peter from laboring
 among ,gentiles or  ,paul from laboring
 among ,jews4 ,the same gospel was being
 preached  by both ,paul and ,peter2    
they gave each other the right hand of  
fellowship4 ,what was meant was simply a
 general recognition of the             
dispensation of ,god which had so far   
prevailed4 ,by that dispensation  ,paul 
and ,barnabas had been sent particularly
 to the ,gentiles and  the ,jerusalem   

apostles to the ,jews4 ,if either group 
was hindered in  its work1 the interests
 of the ,church would suffer4 ,both     
groups1  therefore1 were absolutely     
necessary in order that both ,jews and  
,gentiles should be won4    ,in one     
particular1 indeed1 the ,jerusalem      
leaders requested expressly  that the   
division of labor should not be taken   
too strictly2 they  hoped that ,paul    
would not be so much engrossed in his   
,gentile  work as to forget the poor of 
the ,jerusalem ,church 7,gal4 ii4 #aj74 
,it should be observed very carefully   
that this request about  the poor forms 
an exception1 not at all to the full    
recognition  of ,paul's gospel1 but only
 to the division of labor as between    
,jews and ,gentiles4 ,it does not go    
with the remote words of verse  #f 7for 
to me those who were of repute added    
nothing71 but with  the immediately     
adjacent words in verse #i4 ,paul does  
not say1  therefore1 ,to me those of    
repute added 7or imposed7 nothing except

  that ,i should remember the ,jerusalem
 poor4 ,if he had said that1  then      
perhaps it would be difficult to explain
 the omission of the  ,apostolic        
,decree2 for the ,decree as much as the 
request for aid of  the ,jerusalem poor 
was something that the ,jerusalem       
leaders laid  upon him4 ,but the fact is
 that neither the ,decree nor the       
request  about the poor has anything    
whatever to do with ,paul's gospel or   
the  attitude of the ,jerusalem leaders 
toward it4 ,what is really meant  by the
 request for aid is simply this3 ,you   
are the apostle to the  ,gentiles2 it is
 a great work2 we wish you ,godspeed in 
it4 ,but even  in so great a work as    
that1 do not forget your needy ,jewish  
brethren  in ,jerusalem4    ,after the  
conference at ,jerusalem ,paul and      
,barnabas returned to  ,antioch4        
,according to the ,book of ,acts the    
letter of the ,jerusalem  ,church was   
joyfully received2 it meant a           
confirmation of ,gentile  freedom and   

relief from the attacks of the          
,judaizers4 ,but new  disturbances      
began1 and ,peter was concerned in them4
 ,he had gone to  ,antioch4 ,there is   
not the slightest reason to think that  
his arrival  occasioned anything but    
joy4 ,the notion that ,paul was         
jealously  guarding his rights in a     
,gentile church and resented the coming 
of  ,peter as an intrusion has not the  
slightest basis either in ,acts  or in  
the ,pauline ,epistles4 ,but at ,antioch
 ,jews and ,gentiles were  living       
together in the ,church1 and their      
juxtaposition presented  a serious      
problem4 ,the ,gentile ,christians1 it  
will be remembered1  had been released  
from the obligation of being circumcised
 and of  undertaking to keep the ,mosaic
 ,law4 ,the ,jewish ,christians1 on the 
other hand1 had not been required to    
give up their ancestral mode  of life4  
,but how could the ,jewish ,christians  
continue to live under  the ,law if they
 held companionship with ,gentiles in a 

way which  would render the strict      
observance of the ,law impossible8      
,should the  precedence be given to the 
observance of the ,law on the part of   
the  ,jewish ,christians or to the new  
principle of ,christian unity8 ,this    
question had not been settled by the    
,apostolic ,council1 for even  if the   
,gentile ,christians observed the       
provisions of the ,apostolic  ,decree1  
table companionship with them would     
still have seemed to  involve a         
transgression of the ,law4 ,peter1      
however1 took a step  beyond what had   
already been settled2 he relaxed the    
strictness  of his ,jewish manner of    
life by eating with the ,gentiles4 ,he  
was  convinced of the revolutionary     
change wrought by the coming of         
,christ1 and gave practical expression  
to his conviction by holding  full      
companionship with all his brethren4    
,after a time1 however1 and  perhaps    
during an absence of ,paul from the     
city1 certain men came  from ,james1 and

 their coming occasioned difficulty4 ,it
 is not said  that these men were       
commissioned by ,james1 and some readers
 have  thought that from ,james means   
merely from ,jerusalem1 ,james being    
named merely as representative of the   
church over which he presided4  ,but    
even if the newcomers stood in some     
closer relationship to  ,james1 or even 
had been sent by him1 it is an          
unwarranted assumption  that ,james was 
responsible for the trouble that they   
caused1 or  had sent them to ,antioch   
with the purpose of limiting the freedom
  of ,peter's conduct4 ,they may have   
abused whatever commission they  had    
received4 ,moreover1 it must be         
remembered that they are not  expressly 
blamed by ,paul4 ,if they clung         
conscientiously to the  keeping of the  
,law1 as they had been accustomed to do 
at ,jerusalem1  ,paul would perhaps not 
necessarily condemn them2 for he did not
  on principle or in all circumstances  
require ,jewish ,christians to  give up 

the keeping of the ,law4 ,but ,peter had
 really transcended  that point of view2
 and when1 therefore1 he now1 from fear 
of these  newcomers1 withdrew from the  
,gentiles1 he was concealing his true   
convictions4 ,it was the inconsistency  
of his conduct that ,paul felt  called  
upon to rebuke4 ,that inconsistency     
could not fail to have  a bad effect    
upon the ,gentile ,christians4 ,peter   
had received them  into true fellowship4
 ,but now apparently he regarded such   
liberal  conduct as a thing to be       
ashamed of and to be concealed4 ,the    
,gentile  ,christians could not help    
drawing the conclusion that they were at
  best only on the outskirts of the     
,christian community2 the chief  of the 
original apostles of ,jesus was         
apparently ashamed of his  association  
with them4 ,despite the liberty granted 
by the ,apostolic  ,council1 therefore1 
the ,gentile ,christians were again     
tempted  to remove the disabilities     
which rested upon them1 by accepting    

circumcision and so becoming full       
members of the ,church4 ,evidently  the 
keeping of the ,law on the part of      
,jewish ,christians was a  half-way     
position4 ,but when it was pursued      
conscientiously1 as a  duty still       
resting upon men of ,jewish descent1 it 
might possibly be  dealt with gently by 
,paul4 ,when1 however1 it was undertaken
 for fear  of men1 in the face of better
 understanding1 it became hypocrisy  and
 was rebuked sharply4 ,if the           
transcending of the ,law1 in the        
interests of ,christian unity1 had once 
been grasped as a necessary  consequence
 of the redemption wrought by ,christ1  
then to repudiate  it was to bring      
discredit upon ,christ ,himself1 and    
make ,his death of  none avail4    ,the 
influence of ,peter's withdrawal from   
the ,gentile ,christians soon  began to 
make itself felt2 other ,jewish         
,christians followed ,peter's  example1 
and even ,barnabas was carried away4 ,a 
serious crisis had  arisen4 ,but ,god   

had not deserted ,his ,church4 ,the     
,church was saved  through the          
instrumentality of ,paul4    ,to ,paul  
had been revealed the full implications 
of the gospel2 to  him the freedom of   
the ,gentiles was a matter of principle1
 and  when principle was at stake he    
never kept silent4 ,regardless of  all  
petty calculations about the influence  
that might be lost or  the friendships  
that might be sacrificed1 he spoke out  
boldly for  ,christ2 he rebuked ,peter  
openly before the assembled ,church4 ,it
  should always be observed1 however1   
that it was not the principles  of      
,peter1 but his conduct1 which ,paul was
 rebuking4 ,the incident  is therefore  
misused when it is made to establish a  
fundamental  disagreement between ,paul 
and ,peter4 ,on the contrary1 in the    
very act of condemning the practice of  
,peter1 ,paul approves his  principles2 
he is rebuking ,peter just for the      
concealment of  his correct principles  
for fear of men4 ,he and ,peter1 he     

says1  were perfectly agreed about the  
inadequacy of the ,law1 and the         
all-sufficiency of faith in ,christ2 why
 then should ,peter act in              
contradiction to these great            
convictions8 ,the passage1 ,gal4 ii4    
#aa-ba1 therefore1 far from establishing
 a fundamental disagreement  between    
,peter and ,paul really furnishes the   
strongest possible  evidence for their  
fundamental unity4    ,but how did      
,peter take the rebuke which was        
administered to him8  ,there should be  
no real doubt about the answer to this  
question4  ,details1 indeed1 are        
uncertain2 it may perhaps be doubtful   
when  ,peter acquiesced or how he       
expressed his acquiescence4 ,but that   
he acquiesced at some time and in some  
manner is indicated by the  whole       
subsequent history of the ,church4 ,a   
contrary conclusion has1  indeed1       
sometimes been drawn from the silence of
 ,paul4 ,if ,peter  was convinced by    
,paul at ,antioch1 would not ,paul have 

been sure  to mention so gratifying a   
result8 ,would he not have appealed1    
against the contentions of the          
,judaizers in ,galatia1 to so signal  a 
recognition of his apostolic authority8 
,this argument ignores  the true        
character of the passage4 ,during the   
writing of ,gal4 ii4  #aa-ba ,paul has  
altogether ceased to think of ,peter4   
,what he had said  to ,peter at ,antioch
 happened to be exactly the same thing  
that he  desired to say1 at the time of 
the writing of the letter1 to the       
,galatians4 ,in reporting1 not with     
pedantic verbal accuracy but in         
substance1 what he had said to ,peter at
 ,antioch1 he has entered  upon the very
 heart of his gospel1 which had been    
despised by the  ,judaizers in ,galatia4
 ,long before the end of the glorious   
passage1  ,gal4 ii4 #aa-ba1 he has      
forgotten all about ,peter and ,barnabas
 and  ,antioch1 and is thinking only    
about the grace of ,christ and the  way 
in which it was being made of none      

effect by those who would  desert it for
 a religion of works4 ,to expect him to 
descend from  the heights in order to   
narrate the outcome of the incident at  
,antioch is to do woeful injustice to   
the character of the apostle's  mind and
 the manner of his literary activity4   
,gal4 ii4 #aa-ba forms  a transition    
between the first main division of the  
,epistle1 in  which ,paul is answering  
the personal attack of the ,judaizers1  
and  the second main division1 in which 
he is defending the contents of  his    
gospel4 ,before the end of the passage  
,paul has plunged into  the principal   
thing that he wanted to say to the      
,galatians1 who  were making void the   
cross of ,christ4 ,the presentation in  
,gal4 ii4  #aa-ba of what ,bengel#fa    
called the marrow of ,christianity leads
  inevitably1 therefore1 not to a       
pedantic narration of what ,peter  did1 
but to the exclamation of ,gal4 iii4 #a1
 ,o foolish ,galatians1  who did bewitch
 you1 before whose eyes ,jesus ,christ  

was openly set  forth crucified8        
#fa ,on ,gal4 ii4 #ai4    ,thus the     
silence of ,paul about the outcome of   
the incident at  ,antioch does not at   
all establish the outcome as            
unfavorable4 ,but  there are positive   
indications on the other side4 ,of      
course1 if ,gal4  ii4 #a-aj were        
identified with the famine visit1 the   
whole question  would be settled4 ,in   
that case1 the incident of ,gal4 ii4    
#aa-ba would  have been followed by the 
,apostolic ,council1 at which the       
harmony of  ,peter and ,paul found full 
expression4 ,but even if the            
identification  of ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj with 
the ,apostolic ,council be adopted1     
there are  still plain indications that 
the outcome of the ,antioch incident was
  favorable4    ,in the first place1    
,paul mentions ,peter in #a ,cor4 ix4 #e
 with  respect1 as an apostle to whose  
example appeal may be made2 in #a  ,cor4
 iii4 #bb he classes ,peter with himself
 and with ,apollos as a  possession of  

all ,christians2#fb and in #a ,cor4 xv4 
#a-aa he includes  as part of his       
fundamental missionary preaching the    
appearance of  the risen ,christ to     
,peter1 and appeals to the unity which  
existed  between his own preaching and  
that of the other apostles 7verses #e1  
#aa74fc      #fb ,knowling1 ,the        
,witness of the ,epistles1 #ahib1 p4    
#ad1 note #a4      #fc ,knowling1 loc4  
cit4    ,in the second place1 ,paul     
concerned himself earnestly1 according  
to #a and #b ,corinthians and ,romans1  
with the collection for the  ,jerusalem 
poor4 ,if the incident at ,antioch had  
meant a repudiation  of the right hand  
of fellowship which ,peter in common    
with  ,james and ,john had given to     
,paul at ,jerusalem 7,gal4 ii4 #i71 it  
is  difficult to see how ,paul could    
have continued to engage in a form  of  
brotherly service which was the most    
touching expression of that  fellowship4
 ,if there was a permanent breach       
between ,peter and ,paul1  the          

contribution for the poor saints at     
,jerusalem could hardly have  been      
collected4    ,in the third place1 the  
agitation of the ,judaizers seems to    
have  died down during the third        
missionary journey4 ,it appears1 indeed1
  at ,corinth1 according to the         
,corinthian ,epistles1 but seems there  
to have lacked that insistence upon the 
keeping of the ,law which  had made it  
so dangerous in ,galatia4 ,in the       
epistles of the  captivity--,colossians 
and ,philemon1 ,ephesians1              
,philippians--it  appears1 if at all1   
only in the obscure reference in ,phil4 
iii4  #b;ff41 which may relate to       
non-,christian ,judaism rather than to  
,jewish ,christianity4 ,this subsidence 
of the ,judaizing activity is  difficult
 to understand if the benefits of the   
,jerusalem conference  had been annulled
 by a serious breach at ,antioch4       
,finally1 the whole subsequent history  
of the ,church is explicable  only if   
there was fundamental unity between     

,peter and ,paul4 ,ever  since the      
formation of the ,old ,catholic ,church 
at the close of the  second century the 
,church was founded upon the twin       
pillars of  ,peter and ,paul4 ,how was  
this unity produced if in the apostolic 
age there was fundamental disunion8 ,the
 existence of this problem  was fully   
recognized by ,f4 ,c4 ,baur1 and the    
recognition of it  constitutes one      
element of greatness in ,baur's work4   
,but the  elaborate solution which ,baur
 proposed has had to be abandoned4 ,baur
  supposed that the harmony between     
,pauline and ,petrine ,christianity  was
 produced by a gradual compromise       
effected during the second  century4    
,subsequent investigation has pushed the
 harmony very  much further back4 ,the  
unity between ,peter and ,paul appears1 
for  example1 plainly expressed in the  
letter of ,clement of ,rome 7about  #ie 
,a4 ,d471 who appeals to the two great  
apostles as though both  were of        
recognized authority2 it appears also in

 the first ,epistle  of ,peter1 which   
even if not genuine is important as     
attributing  to ,peter1 as though the   
attribution were a matter of course1 a  
conception of the gospel thoroughly in  
harmony with that of ,paul2  it appears 
in the early traditional account of     
,john ,mark1 by which  ,mark is made to 
be a follower of ,peter 7compare #a     
,peter v4 #ac7 and  to have received    
from ,peter the substance of his        
,gospel1 so that  when his cordial      
relations with ,paul are remembered     
7,col4 iv4 #aj2  ,philem4 #bd7 he       
constitutes an important link between   
,peter and  ,paul4 ,what is more        
important1 however1 than all details1 is
 the  undoubted fact that before the end
 of the first century epistles  of ,paul
 and genuine tradition about ,jesus1    
which latter must at  first have been   
connected with the ,jerusalem ,church1  
appear side  by side as possessing high 
authority in the ,church4 ,finally1 the 
testimony of the ,book of ,acts is now  

admitted to be at any rate very  much   
earlier than ,baur supposed2 and that   
testimony1 so far as the  harmony       
between ,paul and ,peter is concerned1  
is unequivocal4 ,thus  the explanation  
which ,baur proposed for the final      
healing of the  supposed breach between 
,peter and ,paul is unsatisfactory4 ,but
 no  other explanation has been         
discovered to take its place4 ,the very 
existence of the ,church would have been
 impossible if there had been  a        
permanent breach between the leader in  
the ,gentile mission and the  leader    
among the original disciples of ,jesus4 
,the ,book of ,acts does not mention the
 difficulty which arose  at ,antioch    
with regard to table companionship      
between ,jews and  ,gentiles4 ,but it   
does mention another disagreement       
between ,paul and  ,barnabas4 ,barnabas 
desired to take ,john ,mark along on the
 second  missionary journey1 while ,paul
 was unwilling to take with him again   
the one who had turned back on the      

former journey and had not gone  to     
those ,south ,galatian churches which it
 was now proposed to  revisit4 ,it was  
maintained by the ,tbingen school of    
criticism that  the lesser quarrel has  
here been inserted by the author of     
,acts with  the express purpose of      
covering up the more serious            
disagreement  which was the real reason 
for the separation of ,barnabas and     
,paul4  ,but the insertion of a quarrel 
is rather an unnatural way to cover  up 
the fact that there was another quarrel2
 it would have been  better to keep     
altogether silent about the             
disagreement4 ,moreover1  the good faith
 of the author is now generally         
accepted4 ,there is  another possible   
way of explaining the omission of the   
incident  of ,gal4 ii4 #aa-ba from the  
,book of ,acts4 ,it may be surmised that
  the incident was so unimportant in its
 consequences1 ,peter and  ,barnabas    
were so quickly convinced by ,paul1 that
 a historian who was  concerned1 not    

with personal details about the         
relations between  ,paul and the other  
leaders1 but with the external progress 
of the  gospel1 did not find it         
necessary to mention the incident at    
all4    ,after the separation of        
,barnabas from ,paul at the beginning of
 the  second missionary journey1 it is  
not recorded that the two men  were ever
 associated again in missionary work4   
,but in #a ,cor4 ix4 #f  ,barnabas is   
spoken of with respect--,or ,i only and 
,barnabas1 have  we not a right to      
forbear working4 ,evidently ,paul was   
interested  in the work of ,barnabas1   
and was not ashamed to appeal to his    
example4 ,in ,col4 iv4 #aj1 moreover1   
,mark1 the cousin of ,barnabas  is      
mentioned1 and is commended to the      
attention of the ,colossian             
,christians4 ,mark here forms a link    
between ,paul and ,barnabas as he  does 
between ,paul and ,peter4 ,evidently the
 estrangement at ,antioch  was not      
permanent even in the case of ,mark1    

against whom there was  the special     
objection that he had withdrawn from the
 work at ,perga4  ,according to #b ,tim4
 iv4 #aa1 ,mark became exactly what he  
had not been  at ,perga1 useful to ,paul
 for ministering4 ,and if the testimony 
of #b ,timothy be rejected1 the same    
cordial relationship between  ,paul and 
,mark appears also in ,col4 iv4 #aj1    
#aa2 ,philem4 #bd4 ,the  scanty         
indications all point very decidedly    
away from any permanent  estrangement as
 resulting from the incidents at        
,antioch4    ,during the second and     
third missionary journeys1 the agitation
 of  the ,judaizers1 as has already been
 observed1 seems to have subsided4  ,in 
,corinth1 indeed1 according to #a and #b
 ,corinthians1 ,paul appears  in deadly 
conflict with certain men who sought to 
undermine his  apostolic authority4     
,baur made much of this conflict2       
indeed1 he  based his reconstruction of 
apostolic history upon the ,corinthian  
,epistles almost as much as upon        

,galatians4 ,the starting-point of  his 
investigation was found in the party    
watchwords mentioned in  #a ,cor4 i4    
#ab1 ,i am of ,paul2 and ,i of ,apollos2
 and ,i of ,cephas2  and ,i of ,christ4 
,the ,christ-party of the verse1        
identified with  the opponents attacked 
in #b ,cor4 x-xiii1 ,baur believed to   
have  been an extreme ,judaizing party4 
,this extreme ,judaizing party1  ,baur  
maintained1 appealed with some show of  
reason to the original  apostles in     
,jerusalem4 ,thus the ,corinthian       
,epistles like the  ,epistle to the     
,galatians were made to establish what  
was to ,baur  the fundamental fact of   
apostolic history1 a serious conflict of
  principle between ,paul and the       
original apostles4#fd      #fd ,baur1   
,die ,christuspartei in der             
korinthischen ,gemeinde1 in    ,tbinger 
,zeitschrift fr ,theologie1 #ahca1 #d   
,heft1 pp4 #fa-bjf4    ,subsequent      
investigation1 however1 has cast at     
least serious doubt  upon the ,tbingen  

exegesis1 even where it has not         
discredited it  altogether4 ,the whole  
matter of the ,christ-party of #a ,cor4 
i4  #ab is felt to be exceedingly       
obscure1 so obscure that ,j4 ,weiss1    
for example1 in his recent commentary on
 #a ,corinthians1 has felt  constrained 
to cut the ,gordian knot by regarding   
the words1 ,and ,i  of ,christ1 as an   
interpolation4#fe ,where this heroic    
measure has  not been resorted to1      
various interpretations have been       
proposed4  ,sometimes1 for example1 the 
,christ-party has been thought to have  
consisted of those who rejected the     
other watchwords1 but in such  a proud  
and quarrelsome way that the watchword1 
,i am of ,christ1  which should have    
belonged to all1 became only the        
shibboleth of  another party4           
,sometimes1 again1 the ,christ-party has
 been regarded  as a gnosticizing party 
which boasted of direct communications  
with the risen ,christ4 ,at any rate1 it
 is very difficult to find  in the words

 ,i am of ,christ any clear designation 
of ,judaizers  who appealed against     
,paul to ,james or to their own         
connections with  ,jesus in ,palestine4 
,on the contrary1 the reader of the     
first four  chapters of #a ,corinthians 
may well be doubtful whether there were 
any distinct parties at all4 ,it looks  
rather as though what ,paul  was        
rebuking were merely a spirit of        
division1 which manifested  itself now  
in one watchword and now in another4    
,the ,corinthian  ,christians seem to   
have been sermon-tasters2 they were     
proud of  their wisdom1 and laid undue  
stress upon the varying form of the     
gospel message to the neglect of the    
content4 ,it is noteworthy  that in #a  
,cor4 i-iv ,paul does not enter upon any
 anti-,judaistic  polemic1 but addressed
 himself to those who in a spirit of    
pride and  quarrelsomeness sought after 
wisdom4 ,if you would be truly wise and 
truly 'spiritual1' he says1 then cease  
your contentions4 ,paul  was perhaps    

combating not any definite parties1 but 
only the party  spirit4      #fe ,j4    
,weiss1 ,der erste ,korintherbrief1     
#aiaj1 in ,meyer1 op4    cit41 #ite     
,aufl41 p4 xxxviii4    ,it must be      
admitted that there were in the         
,corinthian ,church persons  who        
emphasized against ,paul the advantages 
of ,palestinian origin and  of direct   
connection with ,jesus4 ,but there is no
 reason to bring  these opponents of    
,paul into any close relation to the    
original  apostles and to ,james4 ,the  
letters of recommendation 7#b ,cor4 iii4
 #a7  may have come elsewhere than from 
the apostles2 indeed the mention  of    
letters from the ,corinthians as well as
 to them would seem to  make the passage
 refer to a general habit of            
credential-bearing  rather than to any  
special credentials from ,jerusalem4    
,the opponents  desired to push         
themselves into other men's spheres of  
labor2 and  in order to do so they were 
in the habit of arming themselves with  

commendatory epistles4 ,the reference is
 quite general and to us  quite obscure2
 it is only by exceedingly bold         
specialization that  it can be made to  
attest the existence of letters of      
commendation  from the ,jerusalem       
leaders4 ,moreover1 even if the         
opponents did have  some sort of        
endorsement from ,jerusalem1 they may   
have abused the  confidence which had   
been reposed in them4 ,the ,tbingen     
exegesis  of #b ,cor4 xi4 #e2 xii4 #aa1 
by which the chiefest apostles were     
identified with the pillars of the      
,jerusalem ,church should be  rejected2 
and the phrase 7which is rather to be   
translated those  who are apostles      
overmuch7 should be taken as designating
 simply  the ,corinthian agitators      
themselves4 ,thus1 the apostles overmuch
  of #b ,cor4 xi4 #e become the same as 
the false apostles of verse  #ac1 the   
latter verse being used in order to     
interpret the former4  ,in #a ,cor4 i4  
#ab1 ,peter is mentioned as being       

appealed to by one  of the parties in   
the ,corinthian ,church4 ,it has        
sometimes been  maintained1 on the basis
 of this verse1 that ,peter had actually
 been  present in ,corinth as had       
,apollos and ,paul1 who appear in two of
 the  other party watchwords4 ,but the  
matter is at least very doubtful4  ,as  
chief of the original disciples of      
,jesus ,peter might well have  evoked   
the special admiration of certain       
members of the ,corinthian  ,church     
without having ever been personally     
present4 ,there does not  seem to be the
 slightest evidence for supposing that  
the admirers of  ,peter mentioned in #a 
,cor4 i4 #ab were extreme ,judaizers2   
and there  is no decisive reason for    
identifying them with the opponents who 
appear in #b ,cor4 x-xiii4 ,certainly   
there is no reason for making  ,peter   
responsible for the factiousness of     
those who used his name4  ,it must be   
remembered that ,paul rebukes the ,paul 
party--if it  be a party--as much as any

 of the others1 and distinctly commends 
,apollos1 who was appealed to by the    
,apollos party4 ,evidently the  faults  
of the parties were not due at all to   
those whose names  the parties used4 ,in
 #a ,cor4 iii4 #ba1 #bb1 ,paul says1    
,all things are  yours1 whether ,paul or
 ,apollos or ,cephas4 ,here ,peter is   
put as  part of the common possession of
 all ,christians4 ,there could not      
possibly be a clearer recognition of the
 complete fellowship which  ,paul       
regards as existing between himself and 
,peter4 ,finally1 in #a  ,cor4 xv4 #aa1 
,paul calls attention expressly to the  
fundamental unity  between himself and  
the other apostles3 ,whether then it be 
,i or  they1 so we preach1 and so ye    
believed4#ff ,the ,corinthian ,epistles 
certainly lend no support to the        
,tbingen contention2 they certainly     
provide no evidence of a breach between 
,paul and the original  disciples of    
,jesus4      #ff ,see ,knowling1 as     
cited above1 p4 #ajd1 footnotes #a and  

#b4    ,at the time of his last visit to
 ,jerusalem1 ,paul came again into      
contact with ,james1 the brother of the 
,lord1 and with the ,jerusalem  ,church4
 ,the arrival at ,jerusalem is narrated 
in one of the  we-sections of the ,book 
of ,acts1 and it is there said1 ,the    
brethren  received us gladly 7,acts xxi4
 #ag74 ,the use of the first person     
plural disappears after the following   
verse1 where the meeting of  ,paul with 
,james is described1 but it is very     
difficult to separate  ,acts xxi4 #bj1  
for example1 from the we-section4 ,of   
course there  could be no use of the we 
when the narrator did not participate   
in what was being described4 ,in ,acts  
xxi4 #bj1 it is said that ,james  and   
the presbyters glorified ,god on account
 of what had been done  among the       
,gentiles through the ministry of ,paul4
 ,whatever view may  be taken of the    
composition of ,acts1 therefore1 the    
warm reception  of ,paul on the part of 
the ,jerusalem leaders seems to be      

attested by  an eyewitness4 ,such a     
reception would be very difficult to    
explain  if the relations between ,paul 
and ,jerusalem had been what they are   
represented as being by the ,tbingen    
scholars4    ,according to ,acts xxi4   
#bj-bf1 ,james brought to ,paul's       
attention the  scruples of the ,jewish  
,christians1 who were zealous for the   
law4  ,these ,jewish ,christians had    
been told that ,paul was teaching the   
,jews of the ,dispersion not to         
circumcise their children or to walk  in
 the customs4 ,with regard to the       
,gentile ,christians1 ,james has        
nothing to say except to call attention 
to the ,apostolic ,decree  which the    
,jerusalem ,church itself had adopted4  
,but in order to allay  the suspicions  
of the ,jewish ,christians1 ,james      
suggests that ,paul  should participate 
in a ,jewish vow4 ,according to ,acts   
xxi4 #bf1 ,paul  complied with the      
request4    ,such compliance was        
regarded by the ,tbingen scholars as    

absolutely  incompatible with ,paul's   
character1 and therefore as             
unhistorical4  ,but recent criticism has
 been becoming1 to say the least1 less  
certain about the matter4 ,the incident 
is narrated in a concrete  way which    
creates a most favorable impression2    
indeed1 the passage  seems even to      
belong to the supposed we-section       
source4 ,moreover1  a sober study of the
 ,pauline ,epistles has shown that the  
attitude  of ,paul toward ,judaism and  
toward the ,law was by no means what    
,baur and ,zeller1 through a one-sided  
interpretation of the polemic  of       
,galatians1 had supposed4 ,in           
particular1 the sharing of ,paul in  a  
,jewish vow is only an exemplification  
of the principle which  ,paul lays down 
in #a ,cor4 ix4 #ai-bb of becoming all  
things to all  men4 ,where could the    
principle possibly have applied if it   
did not  apply to the situation in      
,jerusalem at the time of ,paul's last  
visit8 ,where1 if not there1 could ,paul

 have felt bound to become  to the ,jews
 as a ,jew in order that he might gain  
,jews 7#a ,cor4 ix4  #bj78 ,there seems 
to have been no attempt at that time to 
force  the ,law upon ,gentiles1 and no  
tendency to regard it even for ,jews  as
 necessary to salvation4 ,compliance    
with ,jewish custom would  therefore not
 be open to the misunderstanding which  
might have made  it inadvisable during  
the midst of the ,judaistic controversy4
 ,the  devotion of the ,jewish          
,christians to the ,law seems never to  
have  been condemned by ,paul on        
principle4 ,should he then run counter  
to  ,jewish feeling by pursuing a       
crassly ,gentile manner of life in the  
very midst of ,judaism1 when the        
national life1 in the troublous  years  
before the ,jewish war1 was running     
high8 ,the answer to this  question is  
at any rate not so simple as was        
formerly supposed4  ,participation by   
,paul in a ,jewish vow in ,jerusalem is 
not beyond  the limits of that devotion 

to the ,jewish people which the         
,epistles  undoubtedly attest4 ,and it  
is not really derogatory to the         
character  of ,paul4 ,where the truth of
 the gospel was concerned1 ,paul was    
absolutely unswerving and absolutely    
without regard for personal             
considerations2 but when the weaker     
brethren of his own nation  could be won
 without sacrifice of principle1 he was 
fully capable of  becoming to the ,jews 
as a ,jew4    ,while ,paul was in prison
 in ,jerusalem and in ,csarea1 what was 
the  attitude of ,james and of the      
,jerusalem ,church8 ,the ,book of ,acts 
does  not say1 and far-reaching         
conclusions have sometimes been drawn   
from its silence4 ,the ,jerusalem       
leaders1 it is said1 were at least      
lukewarm in their defense of ,paul2 they
 themselves were zealous for  the ,law1 
and they had only been half-convinced of
 the loyalty of  ,paul2 it is no wonder1
 then1 that they were not anxious to    
bring  ,jewish disfavor upon themselves 

by championing the cause of ,paul4      
,this representation can find no support
 whatever in the sources4  ,certainly it
 is not supported by the silence of     
,acts4 ,the disciples  of ,jesus were   
certainly not in positions of political 
influence  at ,jerusalem2 indeed only a 
few years later even ,james1 despite    
his strict ,jewish manner of life1 fell 
victim to the fury of  his enemies4 ,if 
at such a time and under such           
circumstances the  ,jerusalem disciples 
accomplished nothing for ,paul1 the fact
 does not  attest any coldness in their 
sympathy1 or any repentance for the  joy
 with which1 on the unequivocal         
testimony of a we-section1 they  had    
greeted him on his arrival4    ,the     
,book of ,acts does not mention the     
collection which according to  #a and #b
 ,corinthians and ,romans ,paul carried 
up to ,jerusalem for the  poor of the   
,jerusalem ,church1 except perhaps in   
the bare allusion  in ,acts xxiv4 #ag4  
,but no great significance is to be     

attached to  the omission4 ,it must be  
remembered that the ,book of ,acts is   
not  concerned primarily with the inner 
development of the churches1 but  rather
 with the external progress of the      
gospel out from ,jerusalem  to the      
,gentile world4 ,how meager1 for        
example1 as compared with the           
,corinthian ,epistles1 is the account   
which ,acts gives of affairs at         
,corinth6 ,to infer1 therefore1 from the
 silence of ,acts about the  collection 
that the collection was not graciously  
received is to  make use of the argument
 from silence in a most adventurous and 
unwarranted manner4 ,the inference is   
definitely opposed1 moreover1  by the   
testimony of a we-section in ,acts xxi4 
#ag1 where ,paul is  said to have been  
warmly received on his arrival in       
,jerusalem4 ,that  verse refers perhaps 
to the reception of ,paul merely in a   
little  group at the house of ,mnason4  
,but the warmth of his reception there  
was at least of good presage for the    

reception which took place the  next day
 in the assembly of the elders4 ,rom4   
xv4 #ca is sometimes  thought to        
indicate anxious solicitude on the part 
of ,paul lest the  collection should not
 be acceptable to the ,jerusalem        
,church4 ,but the  words will not bear  
the weight which is hung upon them4     
,when ,paul  asks his readers to pray   
that he may be rescued from them that   
are  disobedient in ,juda 7that is1 the 
non-,christian ,jews71 and that the     
offering which he is carrying to        
,jerusalem may be acceptable to the     
saints1 he certainly does not indicate  
any fear lest the offering  may not be  
acceptable4 ,the offering had been much 
on his heart2  it was being carried to  
,jerusalem at the imminent risk of life2
  these perils were being encountered   
out of love for the ,jerusalem          
brethren4 ,surely it is natural for the 
bearer of such an offering  to wish that
 it may be acceptable4 ,that wish is    
natural in the  case of any gift1 no    

matter how certain the giver may be that
 the  recipient will be grateful4 ,it   
was still more natural in the case of   
the ,pauline collection4 ,moreover1 even
 if ,paul was solicitous about  the     
reception of the gift1 his solicitude   
may well have concerned  merely those   
members of the ,jerusalem ,church       
mentioned in ,acts xxi4  #bj-bb1 who    
were suspicious of ,gentile             
,christianity4 ,there is no  reason1    
therefore1 for connecting the solicitude
 of ,paul with the  original apostles or
 with ,james4    ,it will not be        
necessary for the present purpose to    
attempt any  review of the missionary   
journeys of ,paul4 ,the outline of      
,paul's  life is here being considered  
merely for its bearing upon the         
relations which ,paul sustained 7#a7 to 
the original disciples of  ,jesus1 7#b7 
to ,judaism1 and 7#c7 to paganism4 ,the 
first of these  relationships has been  
chiefly in view4 ,enough has1 however1  
perhaps  been said to establish the     

following propositions3    7#a7 ,the    
relation between ,paul and the original 
disciples of ,jesus  was cordial2 there 
is no reason to interpret the right hand
 of  fellowship which the leaders of the
 ,jerusalem ,church gave to ,paul  in   
any other than its full meaning1 and no 
reason to suppose that  the good        
relationship was broken off at any later
 time4    7#b7 ,the early training of   
,paul was thoroughly ,jewish1 and was   
fundamentally ,palestinian1 not         
,hellenistic2 and ,paul never           
relinquished his attachment to his own  
people4    7#c7 ,paul's attitude toward 
paganism1 after the conversion as well  
as before it1 was an attitude of        
abhorrence4 ,if common ground was  ever 
sought with his pagan hearers1 it was   
only as a starting-point  for the       
denunciation of idolatry and the        
proclamation of a revealed  gospel4     
,,chapter ,,iv    ,,paul ,,and ,,jesus  
,,chapter ,,iv    ,,paul ,,and          
,,jesus#fg      #fg ,in the present     

chapter there are some coincidences of  
thought    and expression with the paper
 by the same author entitled ,jesus and 
,paul in ,biblical and ,theological     
,studies by the ,members of the         
,faculty of ,princeton ,theological     
,seminary1 #aiab1 pp4 #edg-egh4         
,the review of ,paul's life has prepared
 the way for the principal  subject of  
investigation4 ,what was the origin of  
the religion of  ,paul8    ,the most    
obvious answer to that question is that 
the religion of  ,paul was based upon   
,jesus4 ,that is the answer which has   
always been  given in the ,church4 ,the 
,church has always accepted the apostle 
,paul1 not at all as a religious        
philosopher1 but simply and solely  as a
 witness to ,jesus4 ,if he was not a    
true disciple of ,jesus1 then  the      
authority which he has always possessed 
and the influence which  he has wielded 
have been based upon a misconception4   
,but exactly the same answer was given  
by ,paul himself4 ,paul  regarded       

himself as a servant of ,christ1 and    
based his whole life  upon what ,christ 
had done and what ,christ was continuing
 to do4  ,it is no longer ,i that live1 
he says1 but ,christ liveth in me4      
,unquestionably this ,christ1 upon whom 
,paul based his life1 was  identified by
 ,paul with ,jesus of ,nazareth1 a      
person who had lived  in ,palestine a   
few years before4 ,a mighty change in   
the mode of  existence of ,jesus had    
indeed1 ,paul believed1 been wrought by 
the  resurrection2 a life of humiliation
 had given place to a life of  glory4   
,but it was the same person who lived   
throughout4 ,there is in  the ,pauline  
,epistles not a trace of any distinction
 between ,jesus  and ,christ1 as though 
the former were the name of the historic
  personage who lived in ,galilee and   
the latter the name of the risen  ,lord4
 ,on the contrary1 the name ,jesus is   
applied freely to the risen  ,lord1 and 
the name ,lord--the loftiest of all     
titles--is applied  to the ,jesus who   

suffered and died4 ,it was the ,lord of 
glory1  according to ,paul1 who was     
crucified 7#a ,cor4 ii4 #h74 ,the same  
phenomenon appears everywhere in the    
,epistles3 the ,lord of glory  lived the
 life of a servant on earth2 and ,jesus1
 the man who had  recently lived in     
,palestine1 was to be worshiped by all  
in heaven  and on earth 7,phil4 ii4 #aj1
 #aa74    ,there is1 therefore1 in the  
,pauline ,epistles not the slightest    
trace of any gnosticizing separation    
between ,jesus the historic  person1 and
 ,christ the divine ,lord4 ,there is1   
moreover1 as ,w4 ,morgan  rightly       
observes1#fh not the slightest trace of 
any adoptionist  ,christology1 by which 
a man ,jesus could be conceived of      
either as  growing up gradually into    
divinity or as received into divinity by
 a  catastrophic event like the         
resurrection4 ,on the contrary1 ,paul   
says  expressly that the ,jesus who     
lived in ,palestine existed1 before ,his
  appearance upon earth1 in the form of 

,god2 and the entrance of that  person  
upon human life is represented as a     
voluntary act of love4  ,his higher     
nature1 therefore1 existed from the     
beginning2 indeed ,he  was1 according to
 ,paul1 the instrument in the creation  
of the world4      #fh ,w4 ,morgan1 ,the
 ,religion and ,theology of ,paul1      
#aiag4    ,finally1 there is no trace in
 ,paul of any doctrine of kenosis1  by  
which the higher nature of ,christ might
 have been regarded as  so relinquished 
while ,he was on earth that the words   
and deeds of  the historic person would 
become matter of indifference4 ,such a  
representation is refuted not only by   
what has just been said about  the      
application of the term ,lord to the    
historic ,jesus1 but also  by the       
references of ,paul to actual words and 
deeds of ,jesus4 ,these  references are 
few2 their scantiness may require       
explanation4 ,but  they are sufficient  
to show that ,paul regarded the words of
 the  historic ,jesus as possessing     

absolute authority and ,his example as  
normative for the ,christian life4      
,thus the testimony of ,paul is plain4  
,he regarded ,christ as ,lord  and      
,master1 and he identified that ,christ 
fully with the ,jesus who  had lived but
 a few years before4 ,this testimony    
must be faced and  invalidated by those 
who would find the origin of ,paul's    
religion  elsewhere than in ,jesus of   
,nazareth4    ,such is the testimony of 
,paul4 ,but what was the testimony of   
his  contemporaries8 ,in the environment
 of ,paul were to be found some  men who
 had been intimate friends of ,jesus2   
presumably they were  acquainted with   
,jesus' character and teaching4 ,what   
was their  attitude toward ,paul8 ,did  
they regard him as an innovator with    
respect to ,jesus1 or did they admit him
 to the company of ,jesus'  true        
disciples8 ,since they knew both ,jesus 
and ,paul1 their testimony  as to the   
relationship between the two is         
obviously worth having4 ,at  this point 

appears the importance of ,baur's work4 
,it is the merit  of ,baur that however 
faulty his solution he placed at least  
in the  forefront of interest the       
problem of the relationship between     
,paul  and the intimate friends of      
,jesus4 ,that relationship1 ,baur       
believed1  was fundamentally a          
relationship of conflict2 ,paul and     
,peter1  according to ,baur1 established
 at best only a modus vivendi1 an       
agreement to disagree2 really they were 
separated by a deep-seated  difference  
of principle4 ,but at this point a      
further problem arises4  ,if ,paul and  
,peter were really in disharmony1 how   
did they ever come  to be regarded as in
 harmony8 ,if there was a deep-seated   
difference  of principle between ,paul  
and ,peter1 how did it come about that  
the  ,catholic ,church was founded not  
upon ,paul taken alone1 or upon ,peter  
taken alone1 but upon ,paul and ,peter  
taken together8    ,here1 again1 ,baur  
displayed his true intellectual         

greatness by  detecting and facing the  
problem4 ,he saw clearly what has seldom
  been seen with equal clearness since  
his day1 that the historian  must       
explain the transition not only from the
 historical ,jesus to  apostolic        
,christianity1 but from apostolic       
,christianity to the ,old  ,catholic    
,church4 ,and for this latter problem he
 proposed a solution  which was not     
wanting in grandeur4 ,but his solution1 
despite its  grandeur1 has succumbed4   
,baur's reconstruction of the second    
century1 with the supposed gradual      
compromise between ,pauline and         
,petrine ,christianity1 resulting       
finally in the ,christianity of the     
,old ,catholic ,church1 was one of the  
first elements in his system  which had 
to be abandoned2 it was destroyed1 in   
the first place1  by the criticism of   
,a4 ,ritschl1 and1 in the second place1 
by the  painstaking labors of           
,lightfoot1 ,zahn1 ,von ,harnack and    
others1  by which1 through a study of   

second-century documents and their      
literary relationships1 it was shown    
that the ,new ,testament books  cannot  
be scattered at will anywhere throughout
 the second century  in the interests of
 a theory of development4 ,ritschl      
showed that the  importance of          
specifically ,jewish ,christianity had  
been enormously  exaggerated by ,baur2  
and the study of patristics tended to   
place  the ,new ,testament books much   
earlier than the late dating which the  
theory of ,baur required4    ,thus ,baur
 did not succeed in overcoming the      
fundamental objection  raised against   
him by the very existence of a ,church  
that appealed  both to ,peter and to    
,paul4 ,if ,peter and ,paul were really 
in  fundamental disharmony1 how did the 
,church come to bring them  together so 
confidently and at such an early time8  
,this question  has never been answered4
 ,the very existence of the ,church is a
  refutation of ,baur2 the ,church never
 could have existed unless the  apostles

 had been in fundamental agreement4     
,but ,baur may also be refuted directly1
 in a purely exegetical way1  by an     
examination of the sources to which he  
himself appealed4 ,baur  established his
 hypothesis of a conflict between ,paul 
and ,peter on  the basis of the ,pauline
 ,epistles4 ,subsidiary evidence1       
thought to  be found in other books of  
the ,new ,testament1 was soon shown to  
be illusory4 ,thus ,baur and the early  
,tbingen scholars detected  an          
anti-,pauline polemic in the ,book of   
,revelation1 which they  attributed to  
,john the son of ,zebedee4 ,this use of 
the ,apocalypse  was soon abandoned even
 by ,baur's own disciples4 ,the theory  
of ,baur1  therefore1 stands or falls   
with his interpretation of the ,pauline 
,epistles1 especially #a and #b         
,corinthians and ,galatians4    ,the    
,corinthian ,epistles1 as has been      
observed in the last chapter1  afford no
 real support to the hypothesis of an   
inter-apostolic  conflict4 ,there is not

 the slightest reason to connect the    
troublemakers at ,corinth with the      
original apostles or with ,james2  and  
the whole subject of the ,christ-party  
in #a ,cor4 i4 #ab is now  felt to be   
very obscure4 ,the evidence of an       
apostolic conflict  narrows down1       
therefore1 to the second chapter of     
,galatians4    ,undoubtedly there are   
expressions in that chapter which if    
taken  alone might indicate ill-will    
between ,paul and the ,jerusalem        
leaders4 ,in ,gal4 ii4 #b1 #f1 for      
example1 ,james and ,peter and ,john    
are called those who seemed1#fi and in  
the latter verse the  phrase is         
explained by the fuller designation1    
those who seemed  to be something4 ,in  
,gal4 ii4 #i1 the same persons are      
designated  as those who seemed to be   
pillars4 ,in themselves these words  are
 capable of an interpretation which     
would be derogatory to the  persons so  
designated4 ,the meaning might          
conceivably be that the  ,jerusalem     

leaders only seemed or were thought to  
be something1  or only thought          
themselves to be something 7compare     
,gal4 vi4 #c71  whereas they really were
 nothing4 ,but this interpretation is1  
of  course1 quite impossible1 since     
,paul certainly recognized ,peter and   
,john as genuine apostles and ,james the
 brother of the ,lord as a man  of real 
authority in the ,church4 ,the most that
 may be maintained1  therefore1 is that 
the choice of the peculiar phrases      
indicates a  certain irritation of ,paul
 against the ,jerusalem leaders2 instead
 of  calling them pillars 7which        
certainly he recognized them as being7  
he shows his irritation1 it is said1 by 
calling them those who were  thought to 
be pillars4      #fi  4    ,the presence
 of indignant feeling in the passage    
must clearly be  admitted2 but the      
question is whether the indignation is  
directed  against the ,jerusalem leaders
 themselves or only against the         
,judaizers who falsely appealed to them4

 ,the latter view is correct4  ,it must 
be remembered that what ,paul in ,gal4  
ii4 #a-aj desires most  of all to       
prevent is the impression that he is    
appealing to the  ,jerusalem apostles as
 to a higher instance4 ,he is not basing
 the  authority of his preaching upon   
any authorization that the apostles     
gave him2 he is not saying that he has a
 right to be heard because  those who   
were the pillars of the ,church endorsed
 his message4 ,such  a representation of
 the conference would have cast despite 
upon all  the work which he had done    
before1 and would have made it necessary
  for him in the future to prove        
constantly against all ,judaizers and   
other opponents his agreement with the  
,jerusalem authorities4 ,the  profound  
consciousness which he had of his       
apostolic authority did  not permit any 
such course of action2 and such         
restrictions would  have hindered his   
work wherever he went4 ,it was          
absolutely essential  in the economy of 

,god that the leader of the ,gentile    
work should  have independent authority 
and should not be obliged to appeal     
again  and again to authorities who were
 far away1 at ,jerusalem4 ,hence what   
,paul desires to make clear above all in
 ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj is that though  he     
appealed to the ,jerusalem authorities  
it was not necessary for  his own sake  
for him to appeal to them4 ,they were   
great1 but their  greatness had         
absolutely nothing to do with his       
authority2 for they  added nothing to   
him4 ,it was therefore not the real     
greatness of the  original apostles     
which caused him to appeal to them 7for 
he needed  no authorization from any man
 no matter how great71 but only the     
greatness which was attributed to them  
by the ,judaizers4 ,they really  were   
great1 but it was only the false use    
which had been made of  their greatness 
by the ,judaizers which caused him to   
lay his gospel  before them4 ,the       
,judaizers were to be refuted from the  

lips of the  very authorities to whom   
they appealed4    ,it should be observed
 that the terms which are now under     
discussion  are incapable of real       
translation into ,english4 ,the         
equivalent  ,english words might seem to
 imply that the reputed greatness of the
  ,jerusalem leaders was not also a real
 greatness4 ,there is no such           
implication in the ,greek4 ,the shortest
 of the phrases1 which may  be          
paraphrased those of repute1 was used in
 ,greek sometimes in a  way thoroughly  
honorable to the persons designated4    
,possibly the  repetition of the        
phrases1 which seems somewhat strange1  
was due to  the employment of the same  
phrases by the ,judaizing opponents4    
,the  peculiarities of the passage may  
perhaps be due partly to the fact  that 
,paul is here using catchwords of his   
adversaries4    ,at any rate1 if the    
reader refuses to interpret these       
expressions  in a way derogatory to the 
original apostles1 such refusal is  not 

due merely to a pious desire to preserve
 harmony in the  apostolic college2 it  
is due rather to the way in which ,paul 
himself everywhere speaks of the        
apostles1 and to the right hand  of     
fellowship which according to this very 
passage they extended  to him4 ,it is   
good exegetical method to interpret     
things that are  obscure by things that 
are plain2 but what is plainest of all  
in  this passage is that the very       
authorities to whom the ,judaizers      
appealed against ,paul recognized the   
hand of ,god in his work and  bade him  
,godspeed4    ,if ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj       
affords no support to the theory of     
,baur1 the  latter part of the same     
chapter 7,gal4 ii4 #aa-ba7 is not really
 any  more favorable4 ,this passage does
 indeed attest a rebuke which  ,paul    
administered to ,peter at ,antioch4     
,peter is even accused of  hypocrisy4   
,the ,greek word#gj is indeed not quite 
so harsh as  the ,english word derived  
from it2 it means the playing of a part 

and so here the concealment of true     
convictions4 ,nevertheless1 the         
incident remains regrettable enough2    
evidently real moral blame was  attached
 by ,paul to ,peter's conduct4 ,but what
 is really significant  is that in the  
very act of condemning ,peter's practice
 ,paul commends  his principles2 he     
appeals to a great fund of ,christian   
conviction  which he and ,peter had in  
common 7,gal4 ii4 #ad-ba74 ,it will not 
do to  say that in this passage ,paul is
 giving no report of what he said to    
,peter1 but is expounding his own views 
to the ,galatians4 ,for in ,gal4  ii4   
#ad he begins to tell what he said to   
,peter before them all2  and there is   
not the slightest indication of a break 
before the end  of the chapter4         
,certainly the break cannot come after  
verse #ad2 for  the thought of that     
verse is quite incomplete in itself and 
becomes  intelligible only when         
explained by what follows4 ,the passage 
is best explained1 therefore1 if it be  

taken as embodying the  substance of    
what ,paul said to ,peter at ,antioch1  
though doubtless  there is no attempt at
 verbal reproduction of the language4   
,at  any rate1 however much of ,gal4 ii4
 #ad-ba be a report of what was  said at
 ,antioch1 and however much be what     
,paul now wishes to say  to the         
,galatians1 one thing is clear--when    
,paul begins in verse  #ad to report    
what he said to ,peter1 he means to call
 attention to  something in which he and
 ,peter were agreed2 he means to say3   
,you  and ,i1 though we had all the     
advantages of the ,law1 relinquished    
such advantages1 in order to be         
justified by faith in ,christ4 ,how     
then can we force the ,gentiles to seek 
salvation by a way which  even in our   
own case was futile8 ,whatever else     
,paul said to ,peter1  this much he     
certainly said4 ,the context makes the  
matter perfectly  clear4 ,it must always
 be remembered that ,paul blames ,peter 
not  for false opinions1 but for        

hypocrisy--that is1 for concealment  of 
true opinions4 ,in verse #ad1 moreover1 
he says expressly that  ,peter was      
living after a ,gentile manner4 ,the    
verb is in the present  tense--if thou  
being a ,jew livest as do the ,gentiles 
and not as do  the ,jews4 ,paul means to
 say that a principle essentially       
similar  to that of the ,gentile        
,christians1 according to which in their
  case the keeping of the ,mosaic ,law  
was relinquished1 was the fixed  basis  
of ,peter's life4 ,peter's present      
withdrawal from the ,gentiles  was a    
mere temporary aberration4 ,before the  
coming of the men from  ,james1 he had  
seen clearly that the great new         
principle of faith  in ,christ took     
precedence of the ,law1 even for ,jewish
 ,christians2  and after the departure  
of the men he would presumably revert to
  his old freedom4 ,indeed even now1    
even while he was withdrawing  himself  
from his ,gentile brethren1 the real    
principle of his life  had not been     

changed2 he was still living as do the  
,gentiles4 ,but  he was concealing his  
real life for fear of men4 ,the very    
nature  of the charge which ,paul       
brought against ,peter1 therefore1      
attests  a fundamental unity of         
principle between the two apostles4     
,paul  condemned ,peter for hypocrisy2  
not for false principles1 but for       
concealment of true principles4 ,in     
principle1 therefore1 ,paul and  ,peter 
were agreed4      #gj 4    ,accordingly1
 even the very passage which at first   
sight lends most  color to the          
hypothesis of ,baur1 really1 when it is 
correctly  interpreted1 provides the    
most striking refutation of that        
hypothesis4 ,the very chapter which     
attests the appeal of ,paul's  bitter   
opponents to the original apostles1 and 
records a sharp  rebuke which ,paul     
administered to ,peter1 really furnishes
 the  best evidence of apostolic unity4 
,it is the second chapter of  ,galatians
 which mentions the right hand of       

fellowship extended to  ,paul by ,james 
and ,peter and ,john1 and it is the     
second chapter of  ,galatians which     
represents the divergence between ,paul 
and ,peter as  divergence of practice1  
not of principle4 ,even if the ,epistle 
to the  ,galatians stood alone1 it would
 establish the fundamental unity of  the
 apostles4 ,but as a matter of fact1 the
 ,epistle to the ,galatians  does not   
stand alone2 it must be interpreted in  
the light of other  sources4 ,the       
one-sided interpretation of ,galatians1 
with neglect of  other epistles of ,paul
 and of the ,book of ,acts1 has been one
 of the  most fruitful causes of error  
in the study of the apostolic age4  ,for
 example1 ,gal4 ii should never be read 
except in the light of #a  ,cor4 xv4    
#a-aa4 ,the two passages emphasize two  
different aspects of  ,paul's relation  
to those who had been apostles before   
him2 and only  when both the two aspects
 are considered is the full truth       
attained4  ,gal4 ii emphasizes the      

independence of ,paul's gospel2 ,paul   
had not  received it through the        
instrumentality of men4 #a ,cor4 xv4    
#a-aa  emphasizes the harmony of ,paul's
 gospel with that of the original       
apostles1 whom ,christ had commissioned 
as directly and as truly as  ,he had    
commissioned ,paul4 ,both passages are  
contained in sources  admitted by all to
 be sources of primary importance2 yet  
either  passage might be misunderstood  
if it were taken alone4    ,thus the    
danger of interpreting ,gal4 ii entirely
 without reference  to anything else is 
signally manifested by a comparison with
 #a ,cor4  xv4 #a-aa4 ,the ,first       
,epistle to the ,corinthians must be    
allowed to  cast light upon ,galatians4 
,but if so1 may not the same privilege  
be  granted to the ,book of ,acts8 ,as a
 matter of fact1 the privilege is  being
 granted to the ,book of ,acts by a     
larger and larger number of  modern     
scholars4 ,baur demanded that the       
,pauline ,epistles should be            

interpreted by themselves1 entirely     
without reference to ,acts4 ,but  as ,j4
 ,weiss#ga pertinently remarks1 such    
interpretation is quite  impossible2 the
 ,epistles taken by themselves are      
unintelligible2  they can be interpreted
 only when placed in the biographical   
outline provided by the historian4 ,of  
course1 that outline might be           
discredited by a comparison with the    
,epistles2 the divergences might  really
 be contradictions4 ,comparison of ,acts
 with the ,epistles is  therefore a     
matter of fundamental importance4 ,but  
that comparison1  as it has been        
undertaken at some length in the two    
preceding  chapters of the present      
discussion1 has resulted favorably to   
the  ,book of ,acts4 ,the divergences   
between ,acts and ,pauline ,epistles are
  no more to be regarded as             
contradictions than are the divergences 
between various passages in the         
,epistles themselves2 and at many       
points the historical work casts a flood

 of light upon the words of  ,paul4     
#ga ,see p4 #dj1 footnote #a4    ,thus  
the imposing construction of ,baur was  
erected by neglecting  all sources      
except ,galatians and ,corinthians1 and 
then by  misinterpreting these4 ,when   
all the available sources are used1  and
 estimated at their true value1 the     
hypothesis of a fundamental  conflict   
between ,paul and the original apostles 
disappears4 ,there  was indeed a bitter 
conflict in the apostolic age1 but1 as  
,ritschl  observed against ,baur1 it was
 a conflict not between ,paul and the   
original apostles1 but between all the  
apostles1 including both  ,paul and     
,peter1 on the one side1 and an extreme 
,judaizing party on  the other4 ,the    
extreme ,judaizing party1 not having the
 support of  the original disciples of  
,jesus1 soon ceased to be influential4  
,the  various sects of schismatic       
,jewish ,christians which appear in the 
second century--,ebionites and the      
like--if they had any roots at  all the 

apostolic age 7which is more than       
doubtful71 could trace  their spiritual 
descent not from the original apostles1 
but from the  ,judaizers4 ,it is no     
wonder then that they were left behind  
in the  march of the ,church4 ,they were
 left behind not because ,peter was     
left behind--for ,peter appears as at   
least one of the foundations  upon which
 the ,old ,catholic ,church was         
built--but because ,peter had  left them
 behind1 or rather because ,peter had   
never given them his  support at all4   
,they were left behind because from the 
beginning  their spiritual ancestors in 
the apostolic age had not really        
belonged with apostolic ,christianity1  
but had been false brethren  privily    
brought in4    ,one fact1 indeed1 still 
requires explanation4 ,if ,paul and the 
original apostles were in such perfect  
agreement1 how is it that the           
,judaizers in the apostolic age could   
appeal to the original apostles  against
 ,paul8 ,the existence of that appeal   

cannot altogether be  denied4 ,the exact
 nature of the appeal is not indeed     
altogether  clear4 ,it is by no means   
clear that the ,judaizers appealed to   
the original apostles in support of the 
content of the ,judaizing  message2 it  
is by no means clear that they made     
,peter or ,james teach  the necessity of
 the ,mosaic ,law for salvation4 ,what  
is clear is only  that they appealed to 
the original apostles in their personal 
attack  against ,paul2 they contrasted  
,paul1 who had become a disciple only   
after the crucifixion1 with those who   
had been intimate with ,jesus4  ,they   
used ,peter to discredit the apostolic  
authority of ,paul1 but  it is not so   
clear that they used ,peter to discredit
 the content of  ,paul's message4       
,if1 however1 they did appeal to ,peter 
in this latter way1 if they  did appeal 
to ,peter in support of their legalistic
 contentions1 such  an appeal does not  
overthrow the conclusions which have    
just been  reached about the harmony of 

,peter and ,paul2 it does not really    
make  ,peter an advocate of legalism4   
,for even if ,peter was not an advocate 
of legalism the appeal of the ,judaizers
 to him can be explained4  ,it can be   
explained not by the principles of      
,peter1 but by his  practice4 ,the early
 disciples in ,jerusalem continued to   
observe the  ,jewish fasts and feasts2  
they continued in diligent attendance   
upon  the ,temple services4 ,outwardly1 
they were simply devout ,jews2 and  the 
manner of their life might therefore    
have given some color to  the ,judaizing
 contentions4    ,inwardly1 it is true1 
the early disciples were not simply     
devout  ,jews2 they were really trusting
 for their salvation no longer to  their
 observance of the ,law but to ,jesus   
their ,saviour4 ,the whole  spirit of   
their lives1 moreover1 was quite        
different from that which  prevailed in 
legalistic ,judaism2 anxious thought for
 the morrow1  gloomy contemplation of   
the triumphs of the oppressor1 had given

  place to exultant joy4 ,the early     
disciples1 indeed1 like the ,jews1  were
 still waiting for the establishment of 
the kingdom of ,god4 ,but  their waiting
 was no longer full of sorrow4 ,the     
,messiah was taken  from them for a     
time2 but ,he had already appeared and  
had brought  salvation4    ,thus the    
early ,jerusalem ,church was really     
quite distinct from  contemporary       
,judaism2 the real principle of its life
 was fresh and  new4 ,but to a          
superficial observer1 on account of the 
continuance of  old customs1 the new    
principle might not appear2 to a        
superficial  observer1 the observance of
 ,jewish customs on the part of the     
early  disciples might seem to be       
legalism4 ,and certainly the ,judaizers 
were superficial4 ,apparently they had  
come into the ,church in the  period of 
quiet that followed the persecution of  
,stephen2 they had  come in from the    
sect of the ,pharisees1 and they        
continued to be  ,pharisees at heart4   

,as ,pharisees they welcomed the coming 
of the  ,messiah1 but they did not      
understand the teaching of this         
,messiah4  ,they looked for a           
continuance of the prerogatives of      
,israel4 ,jesus  was the ,messiah1 but  
was ,he not the ,jewish ,messiah1 would 
,he not  bring about the triumph of the 
chosen people8 ,would not all the       
peoples of the earth come to do         
obeisance to ,israel by submitting to   
,israel's ,law8 ,to such observers1 the 
,jewish practice of the original        
apostles would furnish welcome support2 
these observers would not  care to look 
beneath the surface2 they would say     
simply to the  ,gentile ,christians of  
,galatia3 ,the original disciples of    
,jesus obey  the ,mosaic ,law2 must not 
you do likewise8    ,at a later time    
such an appeal could not have been made2
 at a later  time even the practice of  
the original apostles ceased to conform 
to  ,jewish custom4 ,the tradition      
according to which the apostle ,peter   

finally went to ,rome is emerging       
triumphant#gb from the fires of         
criticism2 and if ,peter went to ,rome1 
it is inconceivable that  he separated  
himself from ,gentile ,christians4 ,even
 in the early  days1 in ,antioch1 he had
 begun to abandon his ,jewish manner of 
life2 surely he must have abandoned it  
more fully when he went to  the capital 
of the ,gentile world4 ,the tradition as
 to the ,ephesian  residence of the     
apostle ,john also points to the        
abandonment of the  ,law on the part of 
the original apostles1 and to their     
definite  entrance upon the ,gentile    
mission4 ,that tradition has been       
rejected  only by attending to late and 
dubious evidence to the neglect of  what
 is plain4 ,but it is not necessary to  
appeal to details4 ,all  that has been  
said above about the position of ,peter 
in the mind of  the ,church shows that  
even the practice of the original       
apostles  finally adapted itself to the 
needs of the expanding ,gentile work4   

#gb ,see1 for example1 ,lietzmann1      
,petrus and ,paulus in ,rom1 #aiae4     
,but in the early period1 in ,jerusalem1
 before it had become evident  that the 
,jewish people as such was to reject the
 gospel message1  the apostles continued
 to observe the ,law4 ,and by doing so1 
they  gave the ,judaizers some color of 
support4 ,thus if the ,judaizers  did   
appeal to the original apostles in      
support of their legalistic  claims1 the
 appeal does not establish any real     
unity of principle  between them and the
 original apostles1 or any divergence of
  principle between the original        
apostles and ,paul4 ,but as a matter  of
 fact it is by no means perfectly clear 
that the appeal was made2  it is by no  
means clear that the ,judaizers appealed
 to the original  apostles for the      
content of their legalistic message     
rather than  merely for their attack    
upon the independent apostleship of     
,paul4 ,it  is possible that they said  
no more than this3 ,paul was not one of 

the original disciples of ,jesus2 his   
authority is merely a derived           
authority2 he is1 therefore1 no more    
worthy to be heard than we2 and  we can 
tell you something new--the followers of
 the ,messiah must  unite themselves    
with the chosen people and obey the ,law
 of ,god4    ,at any rate1 even if the  
,judaizers did appeal to the original   
apostles for the content of their       
message1 the appeal was a false  appeal2
 the original apostles repudiated the   
,judaizers1 and  recognized ,paul as a  
true apostle1 with authorization as     
direct as  their own4    ,thus ,baur was
 wrong4 ,but suppose ,baur were right   
about the point  which has just been    
discussed2 suppose even the most        
impossible  admissions be made2 suppose 
it be granted that the original apostles
  differed fundamentally from ,paul4    
,even then the testimony of the         
original apostles to the true connection
 between ,paul and ,jesus  is not       
invalidated4 ,for even if the original  

apostles differed  fundamentally from   
,paul1 the difference concerned only the
 place  of the ,mosaic ,law in the      
,christian economy1 and did not concern 
the ,pauline conception of the person of
 ,christ4 ,so much at least  must be    
insisted upon against ,baur4 ,the really
 astounding fact1  which emerges from   
all discussion of the apostolic age1 is 
that the  ,pauline conception of the    
person of ,christ1 whatever may be said 
of  the ,pauline doctrine of ,gentile   
freedom1 was never criticized by  the   
original apostles4 ,indeed1 so far as   
can be seen1 it was never  criticized   
even by the ,judaizers themselves4      
,apparently it never  occurred to ,paul 
that his conception of the heavenly     
,christ required  defense4 ,about other 
things there was controversy2 the       
doctrine of  ,christian freedom1 for    
example1 had to be defended against all 
sorts  of objections and by the use of  
all sorts of evidence4 ,but about the   
person of ,christ there was not one word

 of debate4 ,not by man but  by ,jesus  
,christ1 ,paul says at the beginning of 
,galatians4 ,evidently  the ,judaizers  
said1 ,not by ,jesus ,christ but by man4
 ,but apparently  it never occurred to  
,paul that any one might say1 ,by ,jesus
 ,christ  and therefore by man4 ,the    
,judaizers1 apparently1 as well as      
,paul1  recognized the alternative      
between ,jesus ,christ and man2 like    
,paul  they separated ,jesus ,christ    
from ordinary humanity and placed ,him  
on the side of ,god4 ,the same          
phenomenon appears everywhere in the    
,pauline ,epistles--the tremendous      
doctrine of the person of ,christ is    
never defended1 but always assumed4     
,indeed1 in the earlier epistles  the   
doctrine is never even set forth in any 
systematic way2 it is  simply           
presupposed4 ,in ,colossians1 indeed1 it
 is more definitely  set forth1 and     
apparently in opposition to errorists   
who failed  to recognize its full       
implications4 ,even in ,coloss1 however1

 the  doctrine does not seem to have    
been denied2 the errorists apparently   
did not deny the supreme place of ,jesus
 in the scale of being1 but  merely     
erred in attaching undue importance to  
other beings4 ,what is  really          
significant in ,colossians is the       
character of the errorists4  ,evidently 
they were not conservative disciples1   
who appealed  against the heavenly      
,christ of ,paul to the facts about the 
historic  ,jesus4 ,on the contrary1 they
 were gnostics1 engaged in unhistorical 
speculations1 and as far removed as     
possible from anything that  primitive  
,palestinian ,christianity might        
conceivably have been4 ,so  when ,paul  
first has to defend his doctrine of the 
exclusive and  supreme importance of    
,christ1 he defends it not against      
conservative  disciples1 who could      
appeal either with or without reason to 
the  original apostles1 but against     
gnostic speculation4 ,with regard to    
the person of ,christ ,paul appears     

everywhere in perfect harmony with  all 
,palestinian ,christians4    ,the fact  
is of such importance that it must be   
examined in the  light of all possible  
objections4 ,is there any trace in the  
,pauline  ,epistles of a primitive view 
of ,jesus different from the lofty      
,christology of ,paul8    ,one such     
trace has occasionally been found in #b 
,cor4 v4 #af4 ,in that  verse1 after    
,paul has spoken of the complete break  
that comes in a  man's life when he     
accepts the benefits of ,christ's death1
 he says3  ,wherefore we henceforth know
 no man after the flesh3 even though  we
 have known ,christ after the flesh1 yet
 now we know him so no  more4 ,some     
interpreters have discovered in the     
words1 even though  we have known       
,christ after the flesh1 a reference to 
a fleshly  conception of ,christ which  
laid stress upon ,his ,davidic descent1 
,his  connection with the ,jewish       
people1 and in general ,his ordinary    
human  relationships1 to the neglect of 

,his higher1 divine nature4 ,that       
fleshly conception of ,christ might then
 be regarded as the primitive           
conception1 which ,paul himself shared  
until a mature stage of his  ,christian 
life4 ,but this latter suggestion is    
excluded not only  by the whole tenor of
 the ,epistles 7in which ,paul never    
displays  the slightest consciousness of
 any such revolution in his idea of     
,christ71 but also especially by the    
present passage4 ,the passage  deals    
with the complete and immediate break   
which comes in a man's  way of thinking 
when the death of ,christ becomes       
representative  of him--that is1 at the 
beginning of his ,christian life4 ,it is
  therefore entirely out of accord with 
the context to suppose that  ,paul is   
contrasting an immature stage of his own
 ,christian life  with the present      
mature stage4 ,but he is also not       
alluding to  any lower1 fleshly         
conception of ,christ as being held by  
others4  ,the interpretation which finds

 in the passage a human ,messiah in     
contrast to the divine ,christ of ,paul1
 errs fundamentally in making  the words
 according to the flesh modify ,christ1 
whereas as a  matter of fact they       
clearly modify the verb know4 ,paul says
 not1  ,even if we have known a ,christ 
according to the flesh1 we know  such a 
,christ no longer1 but1 ,even if we have
 known ,christ with  a fleshly kind of  
knowledge1 we know ,him in such a way no
 longer4  ,he is not speaking of two    
different conceptions of ,christ1 but of
  two different ways of knowing ,christ4
 ,there is in the passage1  therefore1  
not the slightest reference to any      
primitive conception  of the person of  
,christ different from ,paul's          
conception4    ,in #b ,cor4 xi4 #d ,paul
 speaks of another ,jesus whom his      
opponents in  ,corinth were proclaiming 
or might proclaim4 ,was this other      
,jesus  the historical ,jesus1 in       
distinction from the heavenly ,christ of
  ,paul8 ,does this verse refer to a    

primitive1 ,palestinian conception  of  
,jesus different from the conception    
held by ,paul8    ,the verse is         
certainly very difficult2 it constitutes
 a famous crux  interpretum4 ,but just  
for that reason1 it should not be made  
the  foundation for far-reaching        
theories4 ,there is not the slightest   
hint elsewhere in #b ,corinthians that  
the opponents presented a view  of the  
person of ,christ different from that of
 ,paul2 indeed what  is characteristic  
of the polemic in this ,epistle is that 
doctrinal  questions are absent4 ,there 
is not even any evidence that the       
opponents1 though apparently they laid  
stress upon ,jewish descent1            
,palestinian connections1 and the like1 
and so may perhaps loosely  be called   
,judaizers1 insisted upon the keeping of
 the ,mosaic ,law4  ,apparently ,paul   
does not feel required to defend the    
content of his  gospel at all4          
,certainly he does not feel required to 
defend his  doctrine of the person of   

,christ4 ,but if the opponents had      
really  proclaimed a human ,jesus       
different from the divine ,christ of    
,paul1  it is inconceivable that ,paul  
should not have defended his view4 ,if  
there is one thing that is fundamental  
in the religion of ,paul1 it  is his    
conception of ,christ as divine         
,redeemer4 ,any denial of that          
conception would certainly have called  
forth anathemas at least as  severe as  
those which were hurled against the     
legalists in ,galatia4  ,yet in #b ,cor4
 x-xiii1 though these chapters contain  
perhaps the  bitterest polemic to be    
found anywhere in the ,pauline          
,epistles1  there is no trace of any    
defense of the ,pauline conception of   
the  person of ,christ4 ,the natural    
suggestion is that such defense  is     
absent because it was not called forth  
by anything that the  opponents said4   
,it is adventurous exegetical procedure 
to hang a  heavy weight upon the very   
obscure verse1 #b ,cor4 xi4 #d4    ,as a

 matter of fact1 however1 the           
obscurities of that verse are  not      
hopeless1 and rightly interpreted the   
verse contains no hint  of a primitive  
conception of ,jesus different from that
 which was  proclaimed by ,paul4 ,the   
translation of the ,american ,revised   
,version  may first be presented as a   
basis of discussion1 though it is       
probably incorrect in important         
particulars4 ,in that version the  three
 verses #b ,cor4 xi4 #d-fgc read as     
follows3 ,for if he that  cometh        
preacheth another ,jesus1 whom we did   
not preach1 or if ye  receive a         
different spirit1 which ye did not      
receive1 or a different  gospel1 which  
ye did not accept1 ye do well to bear   
with him4 #e ,for  ,i reckon that ,i am 
not a whit behind the very chiefest     
apostles4 #f  ,but though ,i be rude in 
speech1 yet am ,i not in knowledge2 nay1
 in  every way have we made this        
manifest unto you in all things4 ,by a  
modification of this translation at the 

end of verse #d1 the whole  passage     
might mean3 ,bear with me in my         
boasting4 ,i am 'boasting' or  defending
 myself only in order that you may not  
be deceived by the  opponent who comes  
to you4 ,for if he comes arrogantly     
proclaiming  another ,jesus1 another    
,spirit1 and another gospel1 ye bear    
with him  only too well4 ,bear with me  
then when ,i defend myself4 ,for ,i am  
not a bit behind these 'preminent'      
apostles1#gd since despite what  they   
say ,i have really made the whole truth 
known to you4      #gc #d4          k 1 
1     k    1  4 #e4          4 #f4     t
 1 '  1    '      4        #gd ,the     
translation preferred in the ,american  
,revision1 very    chiefest apostles1   
seems to be based upon the mistaken view
    that the   are the original apostles
 at ,jerusalem4    ,this view is        
rejected in the above paraphrase1 which 
diverges    from the ,american ,revision
 in other ways also4    ,even according 
to this interpretation there is no real 

reference to  a ,jesus of the opponents 
different from ,paul's ,jesus4 ,the     
other  ,jesus of the opponents existed1 
rather1 merely in their own  inordinate 
claims4 ,they had no other ,jesus1 no   
other ,spirit1 and  no other gospel to  
offer4 ,they asserted1 indeed1 that the 
teaching  of ,paul was insufficient2    
they asserted that they had fuller      
information about ,jesus1 about the     
,spirit1 and about the gospel4  ,they   
said1 ,paul has not made the full truth 
known to you4 ,yet  they had really     
nothing new to offer4 ,paul had really  
given to the  ,corinthians the whole    
,jesus1 the whole ,spirit1 and the whole
 gospel4    ,as a matter of fact1       
however1 this interpretation is         
unsatisfactory4  ,it is obliged to      
supply a link to connect verse #d with  
verse  #e--namely1 the thought1 ,bear   
with me4 ,that thought is here  entirely
 unexpressed2 verse #a1 where it is     
expressed1 is too far  back to be in    
view4 ,thus if the pronoun him is       

supplied with the  verb at the end of   
verse #d1 there is no clear connection  
with verse  #e2 the for of verse #e is  
very obscure4 ,if1 however1 the pronoun 
me1 not him1 is supplied with the verb  
at the end of verse  #d1 all is plain4  
,since the pronoun does not appear at   
all in the  ,greek1 the translator is   
free to supply it as the context        
demands2  and the context apparently    
demands the pronoun me4 ,the meaning of 
the passage is then as follows3 ,bear   
with me in my 'boasting4' ,my  boasting 
is undertaken to prevent you from being 
deceived4 ,for if  the one who comes to 
you seeks to commend himself by claiming
 fuller  knowledge of ,jesus1 the       
,spirit1 or the gospel1 then you do well
 to  bear with me in my boasting1 you do
 well to listen to my defense4  ,for ,i 
am not afraid of the comparison with the
 opponent4 ,it is not  true that ,i have
 concealed from you anything about      
,jesus1 about the  ,spirit1 or about the
 gospel2 on the contrary ,i have made   

everything  known to you4    ,the       
exegetical question is somewhat         
complicated by a question of  the text  
in verse #d4 ,manuscript evidence is    
rather evenly divided  between the      
present tense of the verb at the end of 
the verse and  the imperfect tense4#ge  
,unquestionably the imperfect tense is  
the  more difficult reading2 it is      
favored therefore by the well-known     
principle of textual criticism that the 
more difficult reading is to  be        
preferred to the easier4 ,if the        
imperfect be read1 it may perhaps  be   
explained as the imperfect tense in the 
apodosis of a condition  contrary to    
fact2 there would then be a transition  
from one form  of condition to another4 
,paul would then say3 ,if he who comes  
is  preaching another ,jesus1 another   
,spirit1 and another gospel--if such    
were the case you would do well to bear 
with my defense of my own  preaching4   
,if indeed the pronoun him be supplied  
at the end of  verse #d1 as is usually  

done1 the imperfect might be taken      
simply as  referring to past time1 and  
the meaning would be3 ,if he who comes  
is preaching another ,jesus1 another    
,spirit1 and another gospel--when  that 
took place ye were bearing with the     
newcomer only too well4  ,but even so   
the imperfect is extremely harsh1 and on
 the whole it is  more probable that it 
has crept in by a copyist's             
error--perhaps in  conformity to the    
same imperfect in verse #a1 where the   
imperfect is  used to express a wish4   
#ge ,between  and  7or 74    ,what has  
caused the vast majority of commentators
 to supply him  rather than me at the   
end of verse #d is apparently the       
parallel  with #b ,cor4 xi4 #ai1 #bj1   
where ,paul certainly expresses the     
thought1  ,bear with me1 for you bear   
with my arrogant opponents only too     
well4 ,the parallel does indeed         
constitute the strongest argument  in   
favor of the ordinary view of verse #d  
which supplies the pronoun  him1 and    

regards the adverb well as              
sarcastic--only too  well4 ,but the     
argument is not decisive4 ,the          
connection with verse  #e really fixes  
the pronoun which is to be supplied at  
the end of  the preceding verse4 ,paul  
is defending himself against the charge1
  implied in verse #f1 that he had not  
made the full truth known4 ,the         
opponents had claimed to have further   
information about ,jesus1 the  ,spirit1 
and the gospel4 ,but1 says ,paul1 if    
that is their claim1  ye do well to     
listen to my defense4 ,for ,i have made 
,jesus and the  ,spirit and the gospel  
just as fully known to you as they have4
 ,the  thought is perfectly clear if    
only the pronoun me be supplied at  the 
end of verse #d4    ,if1 however1       
exegetical tradition be followed1 and   
the pronoun him  be supplied1 the       
essential implications of the passage   
are not  really different4 ,in no case  
is anything said about a conception  of 
,jesus really differing from that of    

,paul4 ,one interpretation1  indeed1    
definitely excludes such an implication4
 ,the passage may  mean1 ,if the one who
 comes to you preaches another          
,jesus--in that  case you would do well 
to bear with him4 ,but as a matter of   
fact  there is only one ,jesus4         
,therefore you will do well to be       
content  with me4 ,for ,i have made     
,jesus fully known to you4 ,according   
to this interpretation1 which has much  
to be said in its favor1  ,paul refutes 
the opponents and their arrogant claims 
of bringing  something superior to      
,paul's message1 by a reference to the  
obvious  fact that there is only one    
,jesus4 ,if they had another ,jesus1    
,paul says1 then they might claim to    
bring you something that ,i did  not    
bring4 ,but since1 unfortunately for    
them1 there is of course  only one      
,jesus1 and since ,i made that ,jesus   
fully known to you1 they  cannot        
maintain any superiority4 ,this         
interpretation is probably to  be       

preferred among all those which supply  
the pronoun him rather  than me at the  
end of verse #d4    ,at any rate1       
whichever interpretation be adopted1    
,paul would surely  have expressed      
himself very differently if the         
opponents had  presented an account of  
,jesus radically contradictory to his   
own4 ,in  that case he could hardly have
 appealed merely to the completeness  of
 his presentation4 ,instead1 he would   
have had to establish the  truth of his 
presentation4 ,as it is1 the other      
,jesus of the  ,judaizers existed only  
in their own inordinate claims4 ,they   
really  had no other ,jesus to offer2   
,paul had made the whole ,jesus known4  
,the passage contains no hint1          
therefore1 of a primitive conception  of
 ,jesus differing from the lofty        
conception proclaimed by ,paul4    ,thus
 the ,pauline ,epistles contain not the 
slightest trace of any  conflict with   
regard to the person of ,christ4 ,about 
other things  there was debate1 but     

about this point ,paul appears to have  
been in  harmony with all ,palestinian  
,christians4 ,even the ,judaizers seem  
to have had no objection to the heavenly
 ,christ of ,paul4 ,but if  the         
,judaizers1 who were ,paul's bitter     
opponents1 had no objection  to ,paul's 
view of ,christ1 it could only have been
 because the  original apostles on this 
point gave them not even that slight    
color of support which may have been    
found with regard to the way  of        
salvation in the apostles' observance of
 the ,law4 ,the fact is of  enormous    
importance4 ,the heavenly ,christ of    
,paul was also the ,christ  of those who
 had walked and talked with ,jesus of   
,nazareth4    ,let it not be said that  
this conclusion involves an undue       
employment  of the argument from        
silence2 let it not be said that        
although the  original apostles did not 
share ,paul's conception of the heavenly
  ,christ1 ,paul did not find it        
necessary to enter into the debate in   

his ,epistles4 ,for on this matter ,paul
 could not possibly have kept  silent4  
,he was not in the habit of keeping     
silent when the essential  things of his
 gospel were called in question--the    
anathemas which he  pronounced against  
the ,judaizers in ,galatia and the sharp
 rebuke  which he administered to the   
chief of the apostles at ,antioch are   
sufficient proof of his fearlessness4   
,but what can possibly be  regarded as  
essential to his gospel if it was not   
his doctrine of  ,christ as divine      
,redeemer8 ,that doctrine was the very  
warp and woof  of his being2 without it 
he was less than nothing4 ,yet the      
historian  is asked to believe that     
,paul submitted tamely1 without a word  
of  protest1 to the presentation of a   
purely human ,jesus4 ,the thing is      
unthinkable4 ,paul would not have       
submitted to the preaching of such  a   
,jesus if the preachers had all been    
angels from heaven4    ,what is really  
most significant in the ,pauline        

,epistles therefore1  is the complete   
absence of any defense of the ,pauline  
doctrine  of ,christ1 the complete      
absence1 indeed1 of any systematic      
presentation of that doctrine4 ,the     
,pauline view of ,christ is  everywhere 
presupposed1 but nowhere defended4 ,the 
phenomenon is very  strange if the      
modern naturalistic account of ,jesus be
 correct4  ,according to that account1  
the historical ,jesus1 a great and good 
man1 came after ,his death to be        
regarded as a divine ,redeemer2 one     
conception of ,jesus gave place to a    
very different conception4 ,yet  the    
surprising thing is that the mighty     
transition has left not  the slightest  
trace in the primary sources of         
information4 ,the  chief witness to the 
transcendent conception of ,jesus as    
divine  ,redeemer is quite unconscious  
of introducing anything new2 indeed he  
expressly calls attention to the harmony
 of his proclamation with  that of the  
intimate friends of ,jesus4 ,there is   

only one possible  conclusion--the      
heavenly ,christ of ,paul was also the  
,christ of  those who had lived with    
,jesus of ,nazareth4 ,they had seen     
,jesus  subject to all the petty        
limitations of human life2 they had seen
  ,him hungry and thirsty and weary2    
they had toiled with ,him over the      
hills of ,galilee2 yet they gave the    
right hand of fellowship to one  who    
regarded ,him as the divine ,redeemer   
seated on the throne of all  being1 and 
they were quite unconscious of any      
conflict between their  view and his4   
,thus ,paul was not regarded as an      
innovator with respect to ,jesus  by    
,jesus' intimate friends4 ,he was not   
regarded as an innovator  even with     
regard to those elements in his         
message--such as freedom  from the      
,law--about which no definite guidance  
was to be found in  the teaching or     
example of ,jesus4 ,still less was he   
regarded as  an innovator in his account
 of ,jesus' person4 ,with regard to that

  matter even the ,judaizers did not    
venture to disagree4    ,but if ,paul   
regarded himself1 and was regarded by   
the original  apostles1 as a true       
disciple of ,jesus1 how did he obtain   
the  necessary knowledge of ,jesus'     
life8 ,was his knowledge limited to     
intuition or remote hearsay2 or had he  
opportunities for authentic             
information8    ,that question has      
really been answered by the outline of  
,paul's  life in ,chapters ,,ii and     
,,iii4 ,it has been shown that even     
before his  conversion1 in ,palestine1  
,paul must have become acquainted with  
the  facts about ,jesus' life and death4
 ,the facts were common property2  even 
indifference could not have made a man  
completely ignorant of  them4 ,but far  
from being indifferent1 ,paul was deeply
 interested  in ,jesus1 since he was an 
active persecutor of ,jesus' disciples4 
,after the conversion1 ,paul was        
undoubtedly baptized1 and undoubtedly   
came into some contact with ,christians 

in ,damascus4 ,the presumption  is      
strongly in favor of the presence there 
of some who had known  ,jesus in the    
days of ,his flesh2 the independence of 
which ,paul is  speaking in ,galatians  
is independence over against the        
,jerusalem  apostles1 not over against  
humble disciples in ,damascus1 and it   
does not relate to information about    
details4 ,three years after  the        
conversion ,paul visited ,peter at      
,jerusalem1 and also met ,james  the    
brother of ,jesus4 ,it is quite         
inconceivable that the three men        
avoided the subject of ,jesus' words and
 deeds4 ,the fifteen days  spent with   
,peter at ,jerusalem brought ,paul into 
contact with the  most intimate possible
 source of information about ,jesus4    
,according to the ,book of ,acts1 ,paul 
came into contact with ,barnabas  at the
 time of his first ,jerusalem visit4    
,whatever may be thought  of this       
detail1 the later association of        
,barnabas with ,paul1 at  ,antioch and  

on the first missionary journey1 is     
generally or  universally recognized as 
historical4 ,it is confirmed by the     
association of the two men at the time  
of the conference with the  ,jerusalem  
pillars 7,gal4 ii4 #a74 ,thus ,paul     
spent several years in  the most        
intimate association with ,barnabas4    
,who then was ,barnabas8  ,according to 
,acts iv4 #cf1 #cg1 he was a man of     
,cyprus by descent1  but he was also a  
member of the primitive ,jerusalem      
,church4 ,the  kind of information      
contained in this passage represents    
just that  element in the early chapters
 of ,acts which is being generally      
accepted by recent criticism4 ,with     
regard to the community of  goods in the
 early ,jerusalem ,church1 it is        
sometimes supposed  that the author of  
,acts has erred in generalizing and     
exalting to  the position of a principle
 what was really done in many cases by  
generous individuals4 ,but in order that
 there might be unhistorical            

generalization1 there must have been    
something to generalize4  ,details1     
therefore1 like the generous act of     
,barnabas in selling a  field and       
devoting the proceeds to the needs of   
the brethren1 are  thought to constitute
 the solid tradition with which the     
author  of ,acts is operating4          
,objections in plenty may be raised     
against  this treatment of the narrative
 as a whole1 but certainly the          
concreteness of the little detached note
 about ,barnabas makes a  specially     
favorable impression4 ,it will probably 
be admitted to-day  by the majority of  
scholars that ,barnabas really had a    
place in the  primitive ,jerusalem      
,church4 ,but if so1 his close          
connection with  ,paul is of the utmost 
importance4 ,how could ,paul possibly   
have been  for years intimately         
associated with ,barnabas in the        
proclamation of  the gospel without     
becoming acquainted with the facts about
 ,jesus8  ,is it to be supposed that    

,barnabas1 who had lived at ,jerusalem1 
proclaimed ,jesus as ,saviour without   
telling in detail what sort of  person  
,jesus had been1 and what ,he had said  
and done8 ,or is it to be  supposed that
 ,paul closed his ears to what his      
brother missionary  said8    ,at the    
beginning of the first missionary       
journey1 ,barnabas and ,paul  were      
accompanied by ,john ,mark1 and ,mark   
appears again in the company  of ,paul1 
as one of ,paul's trusted helpers1 in   
,col4 iv4 #aj and  ,philem4 #bd4 ,this  
,john ,mark certainly came from the     
,jerusalem ,church2  for the house of   
his mother is mentioned as a            
meeting-place for the  ,jerusalem       
disciples in the incomparably vivid     
account in ,acts xii4  #a-ag of the     
escape of ,peter from prison4 ,whatever 
may be thought  of the ,book of ,acts as
 a whole1 the twelfth chapter is        
recognized  as embodying primitive      
tradition4 ,even ,wellhausen was        
somewhat  impressed with the lifelike   

detail of this narrative2 the chapter1  
,wellhausen admitted1 contains elements 
of high historical value4#gf            
,certainly1 then1 the mother of ,john   
,mark and presumably ,mark  himself were
 members of the primitive ,jerusalem    
,church4 ,tradition1  moreover1 as      
preserved by ,papias of ,hierapolis1    
connects ,mark  with ,peter and         
represents the ,second ,gospel          
7attributed to ,mark7  as based upon    
,peter's preaching4#gg ,the connection  
of ,mark with  ,peter is confirmed by #a
 ,peter v4 #ac4 ,in general1 recent     
criticism  is favorably disposed toward 
the ,papian tradition about the ,second 
,gospel2 that tradition is often        
admitted to have some basis in  fact4   
,of course the words of ,papias about   
,mark's connection with  ,peter         
naturally refer1 at least in part1 to a 
time later than the  formative period of
 ,paul's life4 ,but no doubt the later  
relationship  was at least prepared for 
in the early days when ,mark and ,peter 

were together in ,jerusalem4#gh ,john   
,mark1 therefore1 constitutes  an       
important link1 not only between ,paul  
and the ,jerusalem ,church1  but also   
between ,paul and one of the most       
intimate friends of ,jesus4  ,paul would
 have been able to learn the facts about
 ,jesus' life from  ,mark if he had not 
learned them elsewhere4      #gf        
,wellhausen1 ,kritische ,analyse der    
,apostelgeschichte1 #aiad1    pp4 #bb;f4
      #gg ,in ,eusebius1 ,hist4 ,eccl4  
iii1 #ci1 #ae4      #gh ,b4 ,w4 ,bacon  
7,jesus and ,paul1 #aiba1 pp4 #ae;f47   
believes that    the connection between 
,peter and ,mark is probably to be      
placed only    in the early years1      
principally before the first association
 of ,mark    with ,paul4 ,this view1    
which is insufficiently grounded1       
involves a    rejection of the common   
view1 attested1 for example1 by #a      
,peter v4    #ac1 according to which    
,mark was also with ,peter at a later   
time4    ,the conference between ,paul  

and the ,jerusalem leaders1 described in
  ,gal4 ii4 #a-aj1 whether or no it was 
identical with the ,apostolic  ,council 
of ,acts xv4 #a-bi1 would naturally     
bring an enrichment in  ,paul's         
knowledge of ,jesus' earthly ministry4  
,it is hardly to be  supposed that at   
the conference any more than at the     
first visit  of ,paul to ,jerusalem the 
subject of the words and deeds of ,jesus
  was carefully avoided4 ,such avoidance
 would have been possible only  if the  
,jerusalem ,church itself had been      
indifferent to its own  reminiscences of
 ,jesus' earthly ministry4 ,but that the
 ,jerusalem  ,church was not indifferent
 to its own reminiscences is proved by  
the  preservation 7evidently at         
,jerusalem7 of the tradition contained  
in  the ,gospels4 ,the existence of the 
,gospels shows that the memory of       
,jesus' words and deeds was carefully   
treasured up in the ,jerusalem  ,church 
from the earliest times4 ,paul could    
hardly have come into  contact with such

 a church without obtaining information 
about  ,jesus4 ,he could not have failed
 to obtain information even if he  had  
been anxious to avoid it4 ,but as a     
matter of fact he was not  anxious to   
avoid it2 his apostolic independence1 as
 will be observed  below1 does not      
really presuppose any such absurd       
attitude on his  part4    ,on the third 
missionary journey ,paul was accompanied
 by ,silas 7the  ,silvanus of the       
,pauline ,epistles74 ,according to the  
,book of ,acts1  ,silas1 like ,barnabas 
and ,mark1 came originally from the     
,jerusalem  ,church1 though his         
connection with ,jerusalem is not traced
 so far  back4 ,he is said to have been 
one of the two men who accompanied  the 
,apostolic ,decree from ,jerusalem to   
,antioch 7,acts xv4 #bg74 ,this         
assertion of course will not escape     
unchallenged4 ,it shares no  doubt to   
some extent the criticism which has been
 directed against  the ,decree itself4  
,but the tendency in recent years is to 

find a  larger and larger historical    
basis for the concrete assertions of    
the author of ,acts4 ,so the mention of 
,judas and ,silas as coming  from       
,jerusalem creates a favorable          
impression4 ,it cannot be ruled  out    
merely because it stands only in ,acts1 
or merely because it is  connected with 
the ,decree4 ,even the ,decree1 it will 
be remembered1  is now often admitted to
 be a ,decree of the ,jerusalem ,church 
or to  represent the substance of such a
 decree1 even by those scholars who     
suppose that ,acts is wrong in          
representing ,paul as being present     
when the ,decree was passed4 ,the       
tradition which lies back of ,acts  xv1 
therefore1 cannot lightly be rejected4  
,there is certainly some  evidence1     
therefore1 for connecting ,silas with   
the ,jerusalem ,church4  ,of course1 if 
the narrative in ,acts be accepted as it
 stands1 as  it is being accepted more  
and more generally to-day1 then the     
connection of ,silas with the ,jerusalem

 ,church is firmly established4  ,that  
connection is not without its           
importance4 ,it shows that even  when   
engaged in his specifically ,gentile    
work1 ,paul had not shut  himself off   
from the sources of information about   
,jesus4    ,the mention of ,andronicus  
and ,junias in ,rom4 xvi4 #g is not     
without interest4 ,according to the most
 natural interpretation  of the verse1  
,andronicus and ,junias are declared to 
have been in  ,christ before ,paul was  
in ,christ4 ,they were1 therefore1      
primitive  disciples4 ,certain other    
details are more obscure4 ,does ,paul   
mean  that ,andronicus and ,junias were 
themselves apostles1 the word  apostle  
being used here in a broad sense8 ,in   
that case1 the verse  may be translated1
 ,salute ,andronicus and ,junias1 my    
kinsmen and  fellow-prisoners1 who are  
noteworthy among the apostles who were  
before me in ,christ4 ,or is it merely  
said that ,andronicus and  ,junias were 
regarded highly by the apostles1 had a  

good reputation  among them8 ,in that   
case1 the relative pronoun is no doubt  
to be  taken with the words ,andronicus 
and ,junias rather than with the  word  
apostles2 and two details are mentioned3
 7#a7 that ,andronicus  and ,junias had 
a good reputation among the apostles1   
and 7#b7 that  they were converted      
earlier than ,paul4 ,also the meaning of
 the word  translated kinsmen is        
doubtful4 ,the word may mean merely     
members  of the same race1 that is1     
,jews2 or it may mean members of the    
same family1 that is1 relatives4 ,still 
another interpretation is  favored by   
,bhlig1 who thinks that the word        
designates ,andronicus  and ,junias as  
members of the ,jewish colony at        
,tarsus1 the boyhood  home of ,paul4#gi 
,but however the interesting exegetical 
problems  may be solved1 it seems       
evident that ,andronicus and ,junias had
  become ,christians earlier than ,paul1
 and that they were therefore           
representatives of primitive            

,christianity4 ,the presence of such men
  in the ,church at ,rome--or in the    
,church at ,ephesus1 if the common      
separation of ,rom4 xvi4 from the rest  
of ,romans 7on insufficient  grounds7 be
 adopted--is interesting4 ,it           
exemplifies the kind  of personal       
connection that was undoubtedly         
maintained between  primitive           
,christianity and the ,gentile churches4
 ,even far away in  the ,gentile world  
,paul was not altogether removed from   
contact with  those who had been        
,christians before him4 ,wherever and   
however  ,andronicus and ,junias had    
become disciples1 whether in ,jerusalem 
or  elsewhere1 whether by the           
instrumentality of ,jesus ,himself or by
  the instrumentality of ,his apostles1 
in any case they had become  disciples  
in the very earliest days of the        
,church's life4 ,it is  hardly to be    
supposed that they were ignorant of the 
facts about  ,jesus1 and in all         
probability there were other such       

persons1 even in  ,pauline churches4    
#gi ,bhlig1 ,die ,geisteskultur von     
,tarsos1 #aiac1 pp4 #adj-adb4    ,but it
 is not necessary to lay stress upon    
,andronicus and ,junias1  when ,peter   
and ,james and ,barnabas and ,mark all  
came into close  contact with ,paul4    
,paul had abundant opportunity for      
acquainting  himself with the words and 
deeds of ,jesus4    ,three important    
facts have thus far been established2   
7#a7 ,paul  regarded himself as a       
disciple of ,jesus of ,nazareth1 7#b7 he
 was  so regarded by the intimate       
friends of ,jesus1 7#c7 he had abundant 
sources of information about ,jesus'    
life4 ,the natural conclusion is  that  
,paul was a true disciple of the real   
,jesus4    ,this conclusion is thought  
to be overthrown by two considerations4 
,in the first place1 it is said1 ,paul  
himself attests his own  indifference to
 historical information about ,jesus2   
and in the  second place1 such          
indifference is confirmed by the paucity

 of  references in the ,epistles to     
,jesus' words and deeds4 ,these two     
considerations lead into the heart of   
the problem1 and must be  examined with 
some care4    ,the indifference of ,paul
 toward historical information about    
,jesus  is thought to be attested       
chiefly by #b ,cor4 v4 #af and by the   
,epistle  to the ,galatians4 ,in #b     
,cor4 v4 #af ,paul says1 ,even if we    
have known  ,christ according to the    
flesh1 yet now we know ,him so no more4 
,what  can these words mean1 it is      
asked1 except that ordinary information 
about ,jesus1 dealing with the details  
of ,his earthly life1 the kind  of      
information that one man can obtain of  
another by sight and  hearing1 has      
become valueless for the ,christian8    
,the ,christian1 ,paul  says1 is        
interested not at all in what           
eyewitnesses may say or in  what he     
himself may remember about the earthly  
life of ,jesus2 he is  interested only  
in the direct contact which he has at   

present with  the risen ,lord4    ,this 
interpretation ignores the fact that the
 assertion in #b ,cor4  v4 #af about the
 knowledge of ,christ is only an        
application of the  general assertion at
 the beginning of the verse about the   
knowledge  of persons in general4 ,so   
that1 says ,paul1 we from now on know   
no one after the flesh4 ,paul says1     
therefore1 not only that he  does not   
know ,christ after the flesh1 but also  
that he does not  know any man after the
 flesh1 and the two assertions must     
obviously  be interpreted in the same   
way4 ,therefore the interpretation which
  has been proposed for the knowledge of
 ,christ1 if it is to commend  itself1  
must also be applied to the knowledge of
 every man4    ,but when it is so       
applied it results in absurdity4 ,it    
would make  ,paul indifferent not only  
to ordinary information about ,jesus1   
but also to ordinary information about  
men in general4 ,but as a  matter of    
fact ,paul was not indifferent to       

ordinary information  about men in      
general4 ,on the contrary1 he was       
exceedingly careful  about getting      
information just as accurate as could   
possibly  be secured4 ,was ,paul a      
visionary1 with his head always in the  
clouds1 indifferent to the concrete     
problems of individual men1  indifferent
 to what men had to tell him about their
 various earthly  relationships1        
indifferent to their bodily needs8 ,the 
,first ,epistle  to the ,corinthians is 
a magnificent refutation of such a      
caricature4  ,that ,epistle represents  
,paul as a pastor of souls1 unsurpassed 
in  his insight into the practical      
problems of his converts1 unsurpassed   
in the tact with which he applied great 
principles to special  circumstances4   
,but the same characteristics appear    
everywhere in  ,paul4 ,everywhere ,paul 
is the true friend1 the true patriot1   
and the  true man2 everywhere he        
exhibits that careful attention to      
detail1  that careful recognition of    

special relationships1 which is lacking 
in genuinely mystical piety4 ,some      
pastors are accustomed to say the  same 
thing no matter what questions are laid 
before them2 they can  only enunciate   
general principles without applying them
 to special  problems2 they are         
incapable of special friendships and    
incapable  of analyzing actual          
situations4 ,it is not so in the case of
 ,paul4  ,in the ,pauline ,epistles     
special problems are solved in the light
 of  eternal principles2 but the special
 problems as well as the eternal        
principles are subjected to the most    
careful examination4 ,paul was  not     
indifferent to ordinary knowledge of his
 fellow-men4    ,thus when ,paul says   
that he knows no man after the flesh he 
does  not mean that he ignored the      
ordinary knowledge which comes through  
sight and hearing4 ,but if that kind of 
knowledge is not excluded  from the     
relations between ,paul and men in      
general1 it is also  not excluded from  

the relations between ,paul and ,christ2
 for the  latter part of the verse is   
evidently placed in parallel with the   
former part4 ,it is evidently the same  
kind of knowledge which is  excluded in 
both cases4 ,paul does not mean1        
therefore1 that he was  indifferent to  
ordinary sources of information about   
,christ4    ,what he does mean is that  
he regarded those ordinary sources of   
information not as an end in themselves1
 but as a means to an end4  ,the natural
 man according to ,paul does not        
understand the true  significance of the
 words and deeds of his fellow-men2 he  
does  not use them to attest spiritual  
facts4 ,the man who is in ,christ1  on  
the contrary1 even when he uses ordinary
 means of information1  is acquiring    
knowledge of spiritual relationships1   
relationships  which exist in the new   
world4 ,so it is also with the knowledge
 of  ,christ4 ,the natural man may      
acquire a certain knowledge of ,christ2 
he may learn what ,christ said and did  

and what were the worldly  circumstances
 of ,his life4 ,but such knowledge is a 
knowledge  according to the flesh2 it   
does not attain to the true significance
  even of those facts which are learned4
 ,the man who is in ,christ1  on the    
other hand1 may operate partly with the 
same materials2 but  even when he is    
operating with the same materials1 even 
when he is  obtaining by sight or by    
hearsay knowledge of the words and deeds
  of ,jesus1 these facts now are        
invested with a higher significance4    
,the natural man detects only the       
outward appearance of the words  and    
deeds of ,jesus2 the man who is in      
,christ makes them attest  facts that   
have significance in the new world4 ,no 
doubt the higher  knowledge of ,christ  
of which ,paul is speaking is not       
limited to this  spiritual use of       
ordinary sources of information2 no     
doubt there is  also a direct           
intercourse between the believer and the
 risen ,lord4  ,but the spiritual use of

 the ordinary sources of information is 
certainly not excluded4 ,paul does not  
mean that he was indifferent  to what   
,jesus said and did4    ,thus #b ,cor4  
v4 #af1 rightly interpreted1 does not   
attest any  indifference on the part of 
,paul toward the information about      
,jesus  which came to him through       
contact with ,jesus' disciples4 ,such   
indifference1 however1 is also thought  
to be attested by the ,epistle  to the  
,galatians4 ,in ,gal4 i1 ii1 ,paul      
emphasizes his complete  independence   
over against the original disciples4 ,he
 received his  gospel1 he says1 not by  
the instrumentality of men1 but by      
direct  revelation from the risen       
,christ4 ,even after the revelation he  
felt  no need of instruction from those 
who had been apostles before him4  ,it  
was three years before he saw any of    
them1 and then he was with  ,peter only 
fifteen days4 ,even when he did finally 
have a conference  with the original    
apostles1 he received nothing from them2

 they  recognized that ,god had already 
entrusted him with his gospel and  that 
they had nothing to add4 ,what can this 
passage mean1 it is  asked1 except that 
,paul was indifferent to tradition1 and 
derived  his knowledge of ,christ       
entirely from revelation8    ,in answer1
 it is sufficient to point to #a ,cor4  
xv4 #a-aa4 ,was ,paul  indifferent to   
tradition8 ,in #a ,cor4 xv4 #c he       
himself attests the  contrary2 he places
 tradition--something that he had       
received--at  the very foundation of his
 missionary preaching4 ,for ,i delivered
  unto you among the first things1 he   
says1 that which ,i also  received4 ,the
 word received here certainly designates
 information  obtained by ordinary word 
of mouth1 not direct revelation from the
  risen ,christ2 and the content of what
 was received fixes the  source of the  
information pretty definitely in the    
fifteen days  which ,paul spent with    
,peter at ,jerusalem4 ,it is almost     
universally  admitted that #a ,cor4 xv4 

#c;ff4 contains the tradition of the    
,jerusalem ,church with regard to the   
death and resurrection of ,jesus4       
,the comparison with #a ,cor4 xv4 #a-aa 
thus exhibits the danger of             
interpreting the ,epistle to the        
,galatians in one-sided fashion4 ,if    
,galatians stood by itself1 the reader  
might suppose that at least  the        
resurrection of ,christ1 the central    
fact of ,paul's gospel1 was  founded1 in
 ,paul's preaching1 upon ,paul's own    
testimony alone4 ,in  ,galatians ,paul  
says that his gospel was not derived    
from men4 ,but  his gospel was grounded 
upon the resurrection of ,christ4       
,surely1  it might be said1 therefore1  
he based at least the resurrection  not 
at all upon the testimony of others but 
upon the revelation  which came to him  
from ,christ4 ,is it possible to        
conceive of the  author of ,galatians as
 appealing for the foundation of his    
gospel  to the testimony of ,peter and  
the twelve and other brethren in  the   

primitive ,church--to the testimony of  
exactly those men whose  mediatorship he
 is excluding in ,galatians8 ,yet as a  
matter of fact1  that is exactly what   
,paul did4 ,that he did so is attested  
not by the  ,book of ,acts or by any    
source upon which doubt might be cast1  
but  by one of the accepted epistles4   
,the ,epistle to the ,galatians must    
always be interpreted in the light of #a
 ,cor4 xv4 #a-aa4    ,what then does    
,paul mean in ,galatians when he says   
that he received  his gospel directly   
from ,christ8 ,the answer is perfectly  
plain4 ,he  does not mean that when he  
drew near to ,damascus on that memorable
  day he knew none of the facts about   
,jesus2 he does not mean that  after    
that day his knowledge of the facts was 
not enriched by  intercourse with       
,jesus' friends4 ,what ,jesus really    
gave him near  ,damascus was not so much
 the facts as a new interpretation of   
the  facts4 ,he had known some of the   
facts before1 but they had filled  him  

with hatred4 ,the ,galilean prophet had 
cast despite upon the ,law2  ,he had    
broken down the prerogatives of ,israel2
 it was blasphemous1  moreover1 to      
proclaim a crucified malefactor as the  
,lord's ,anointed4  ,paul had known the 
facts before2 he had known them only too
 well4  ,now1 however1 he obtained a new
 interpretation of the facts2 he        
obtained that new interpretation not by 
human intermediation1 not by  reflection
 upon the testimony of the disciples1   
not by the example  of the holy martyrs1
 but by revelation from ,jesus ,himself4
 ,jesus  ,himself appeared to him4 ,he  
might have appeared in anger1 to destroy
  him for his unspeakable sin4 ,instead1
 ,he appeared in love1 to call  him into
 fellowship and into glorious service1  
to commission him as  apostle of the    
,one whose ,church he had laid waste4   
,that is what ,paul  means when he says 
that he received his gospel directly    
from the  risen ,christ4    ,the truth  
is1 it never occurred to ,paul to regard

 the bare facts  about ,jesus as        
constituting a gospel2 it never even    
occurred  to ,paul to reflect upon all  
the sources of information about the    
facts4 ,to us the sources of information
 about ,jesus are limited3  therefore   
they are searched out and numbered and  
weighed4 ,but to  ,paul the sources of  
information were so numerous that they  
could  not be catalogued4 ,it never     
occurred to him to regard with supreme  
gratitude the particular source from    
which he derived any particular  bit of 
information about ,jesus any more than  
we regard with special  gratitude the   
newspaper from which we derive our      
knowledge of  current events4 ,if one   
newspaper had not printed the news1     
others  would have done so2 the sources 
of information are so numerous  that we 
do not reflect upon them4 ,so it was in 
the case of ,paul's  information about  
,jesus4 ,bare detailed information about
 the words  and deeds of ,jesus did not 
in ,paul's mind constitute a gospel2    

they constituted only the materials upon
 which the gospel was based4  ,when he  
says1 therefore1 that he did not receive
 his gospel from  men he does not mean  
that he received no information from    
,peter or  ,barnabas or ,mark or ,james 
or the five hundred brethren who had    
seen  the risen ,lord4 ,what he does    
mean is that he himself was convinced   
of the decisive fact--the fact of the   
resurrection--not by the  testimony of  
these men1 but by the divine            
interposition on the road  to ,damascus1
 and that none of these men told him how
 he himself was  to be saved or what he 
was to say to the ,gentiles about the   
way of  salvation4 ,materials for the   
proof of his gospel might come to him   
from ordinary sources of information1   
but his gospel itself was  given to him 
directly by ,christ4    ,thus ,paul does
 not directly attest any indifference on
 his  part toward tradition about the   
life of ,jesus4 ,but is not such        
indifference revealed by the extreme    

paucity of references in the  ,pauline  
,epistles to what ,jesus said and did8  
,in answer to this question it must be  
admitted that direct citations  in the  
,pauline ,epistles of words of ,jesus1  
and direct references to  the details of
 ,jesus' life1 are surprisingly few4 ,in
 #a ,cor4 vii4 #aj1  ,paul appeals to a 
command of the ,lord about divorce1 and 
carefully  distinguishes such commands  
from what he himself is saying to the   
,corinthians 7verses #ab1 #be74 ,in #a  
,cor4 ix4 #ad1 he calls attention  to an
 ordinance of the ,lord to the effect   
that they that proclaim  the gospel     
should live of the gospel4 ,in these    
passages it cannot  be doubted that the 
commands of the ,lord are commands that 
,jesus  gave during ,his earthly        
ministry2 they are certainly not        
commands  given to ,paul by the risen   
,christ4 ,for the words which ,paul     
himself  wrote to his churches1 by      
virtue of his apostolic authority1      
themselves constituted commands of the  

,lord in the broad sense1 in  that the  
authority of the ,lord was behind them  
7#a ,cor4 xiv4 #cg72  here1 therefore1  
when such apostolic commands are        
distinguished from  commands of the     
,lord1 the commands of the ,lord must be
 taken in a  narrower sense4 ,they can  
only be commands given by ,jesus during 
,his  earthly ministry4#hj      #hj     
,compare ,knowling1 ,the ,witness of the
 ,epistles1 #ahib1 pp4 #cai;f4    ,these
 passages show that ,paul was in the    
habit of distinguishing  what ,jesus    
said on earth to ,his disciples from    
what the risen ,lord  said to him       
directly by revelation4 ,they show1     
moreover1 that ,paul  was in possession 
of a fund of information about the words
 of  ,jesus4 ,it may be a question why  
he did not draw upon the fund more      
frequently2 but at any rate1 the fund   
was there4    ,in #a ,thess4 iv4 #ae1   
the assurance that those who are alive  
at  the ,parousia shall not precede     
those that have died is grounded  in a  

word of the ,lord 7,for this we say to  
you in a word of the  ,lord74#ha ,here  
again the word of the ,lord is probably 
to be  regarded as a word which ,jesus  
spoke while ,he was on earth1 rather    
than as a revelation made by the risen  
,lord directly to ,paul4 ,if  this      
interpretation be correct1 then this    
passage contains another  incidental    
reference to a fund of information about
 the words of  ,jesus4      #ha       4 
,most important of all1 however1 is the 
report of the institution of  the       
,lord's ,supper in #a ,cor4 xi4 #bc;ff4 
,the report is introduced by  the words1
 ,for ,i received from the ,lord that   
which also ,i delivered  unto you4 ,what
 does ,paul mean by the expression      
received from the  ,lord8 ,does he mean 
that the information was given him      
directly by  the risen ,christ1 or that 
he received it by ordinary word of mouth
  from the eyewitnesses8 ,the former    
interpretation has been favored  in the 
first place by some who occupy a        

strictly supernaturalistic  point of    
view1 to whom therefore it does not seem
 strange that the  risen ,christ should 
give to ,his apostle even detailed      
information  about past events2 it has  
also been favored by some who start from
  naturalistic presuppositions1 and1    
regarding ,paul as a mystic and a       
visionary1 seek to separate him as far  
as possible from historical  tradition  
about ,jesus4 ,but from either of these 
two points of view  the interpretation  
is unsatisfactory4 ,why should the risen
 ,christ  give to ,his apostle detailed 
information which could be obtained     
perfectly well by ordinary inquiry from 
the eyewitnesses8 ,such  revelation     
would be unlike the other miracles of   
the ,bible4 ,god  does not rend the     
heaven to reveal what can be learned    
just as  well by ordinary word of mouth4
 ,but this interpretation is equally    
unsatisfactory from the naturalistic    
point of view4 ,did ,paul really        
suppose the risen ,christ to have given 

him all this detailed  information about
 the night of the betrayal and the rest8
 ,how could  such a visionary experience
 be explained8 ,the only possible       
answer1  on naturalistic                
presuppositions1 would be that the      
vision merely  made use of materials    
which were already in ,paul's mind2     
,paul  already had information from the 
eyewitnesses about the ,supper1 but     
after he had forgotten whence he had    
received the information it  welled up  
again from his subconscious life in the 
form of a vision4  ,this explanation    
involves a psychological absurdity4 ,the
 area of  ,paul's consciousness was not 
so limited as it is represented in      
modern reconstructions as being4 ,if    
,paul received information from  the    
eyewitnesses about what ,jesus said and 
did on the night of the  betrayal1 we   
can be sure that he remembered the      
information and  remembered where he had
 got it4 ,it was not necessary for him  
to  receive it all over again in a      

vision4    ,there are therefore serious 
a priori objections against finding  in 
the words received from the ,lord in #a 
,cor4 xi4 #bc a reference  to direct    
revelation4 ,but this interpretation is 
not really favored  by the words as they
 stand4 ,the word from1 in the clause ,i
  received from the ,lord1 is not the   
only word used for from after  the word 
received2 this word seems to indicate   
not the immediate  but the ultimate     
source of what is received4#hb          
,furthermore1 the  word received#hc in  
#a ,cor4 xv4 #c certainly refers to     
ordinary  information obtained from     
eyewitnesses2 it is natural therefore to
  find a similar usage of the word in #a
 ,cor4 xi4 #bc4 ,it is natural to       
interpret one passage after the analogy 
of the other4 ,in #a ,cor4 xv4  #c;ff4  
,paul is certainly appealing to ordinary
 tradition2 probably1  therefore1 he is 
also doing so in #a ,cor4 xi4 #bc;ff4   
,the report of  the institution of the  
,lord's ,supper is thus to be added to  

those  passages which contain definite  
citations of the words of ,jesus4       
#hb  is here used1 not 4      #hc 4     
,this report also belongs with those    
passages in the ,epistles which  attest 
knowledge of the details of ,jesus'     
life4 ,it is sometimes said  that ,paul 
is interested only in two facts about   
,jesus1 the death  and the resurrection4
 ,yet in #a ,cor4 xi4 #bc he refers even
 to such a  detail as the betrayal1 and 
fixes the time of its occurrence--the   
night in which ,he was betrayed4 ,other 
details about the life of  ,jesus may be
 gleaned from the ,epistles4 ,jesus1    
according to ,paul1  was a ,jew1 ,he was
 descended from ,david1 ,he was subject 
to the ,mosaic  ,law1 ,he had brothers1 
of whom one is named1 ,he carried on a  
ministry  for the ,jews 7,rom4 xv4 #h74 
,with regard to the crucifixion and     
resurrection1 moreover1 ,paul was       
interested not merely in the bare  facts
 themselves2 he was also interested in  
the details connected  with them4 ,thus 

in #a ,cor4 xv4 #d he mentions the      
burial of ,jesus as  having formed a    
part of his fundamental missionary      
preaching2 and he  also gives in the    
same connection an extended list of     
appearances  of the risen ,christ4 ,it  
is possible that when ,paul writes to   
the  ,galatians that ,jesus ,christ     
crucified had been pictured or placarded
  before their eyes 7,gal4 iii4 #a71 he 
is referring1 not merely to  the        
forcibleness with which the one fact of 
,christ's death was  proclaimed in      
,galatia1 but also to the vividness with
 which the  story was told in detail4   
,so vivid was the story of the          
crucifixion  as ,paul told it in        
,galatia that it was as though the      
,galatians had  before their eyes a     
great picture of ,jesus on the cross4   
,moreover1 the references of ,paul to   
,jesus' life concern not merely         
details2 some of them also attest warm  
appreciation of ,jesus'  character4 ,the
 character of ,jesus is indeed1         

according to ,paul1  exhibited primarily
 by the great central act of love by    
which ,he  came to earth to die for the 
salvation of men4 ,in ,phil4 ii4 #e;ff41
  the unselfishness of ,christ1 which is
 held up for imitation by  the          
,philippian ,christians1 is found no    
doubt primarily in the  incarnation and 
in the ,cross2 in ,gal4 ii4 #bj1 the    
love of ,christ1  upon which the faith  
and the gratitude of believers are      
based1 is  found in the one great fact  
of ,christ's death 7who loved me and    
gave himself for me74 ,but there are    
also passages in the ,epistles  which   
show that ,paul was impressed with the  
character of ,jesus not  only as it was 
manifested by the incarnation and by the
 atoning  death1 but also as it appeared
 in the daily life of ,jesus throughout 
,his earthly ministry4 ,the plainest of 
such passages1 perhaps1 are #b  ,cor4 x4
 #a and ,rom4 xv4 #b1 #c4 ,when ,paul   
speaks of the meekness and  gentleness  
of ,christ1 he refers evidently to the  

impression which  ,jesus made upon ,his 
contemporaries2 and when he says that   
,christ  pleased not himself but bore   
reproaches patiently1 he is evidently   
thinking not only of the gracious acts  
of incarnation and atonement  but also  
of the conduct of ,jesus from day to    
day4 ,in #b ,cor4 viii4 #i  7though ,he 
was rich yet for your sakes ,he became  
poor71 although  the reference may be   
primarily to the poverty of any human   
life  as compared with the glories of   
the prexistent ,christ1 yet the         
peculiar choice of words is probably due
 to the details of ,jesus'  life of     
hardship2 ,paul would hardly have spoken
 in this way if ,jesus  while ,he was on
 earth had lived in the magnificence of 
an earthly  kingdom4 ,even in ,phil4 ii4
 #g1 though the form of a servant refers
  primarily to human existence as       
distinguished from the glories of       
heaven1 yet there seems to be also an   
impression of the special  humility and 
poverty of ,jesus' earthly life2 and the

 ,cross is put  as the climax of an     
obedience which appeared also in ,jesus'
 life  as a whole 7verse #h74 ,back of  
these passages there lies warm          
appreciation of ,jesus' character as it 
appeared in the days of ,his  flesh4    
,imitation of ,christ 7#a ,thess4 i4 #f2
 #a ,cor4 xi4 #a7 had its  due place in 
the life and teaching of ,paul1 and that
 imitation was  founded not only upon   
one act1 but upon many acts1 of the     
,lord4 ,when  ,paul speaks of his own   
life of constant self-sacrifice1 in     
which  he seeks not his own comfort but 
the salvation of others1 as being  led  
in imitation of ,christ 7#a ,cor4 x4    
#cb-xi4 #a71 he has before his  mind the
 lineaments of just that ,jesus who is  
known to us in the  ,gospels--that      
,jesus who had not where to lay ,his    
head1 who went  about doing good1 and   
who preached the gospel to the poor4    
,thus the paucity of references in the  
,pauline ,epistles to the  teaching and 
example of ,jesus has sometimes been    

exaggerated4 ,the  ,epistles attest     
considerable knowledge of the details of
 ,jesus'  life1 and warm appreciation of
 ,his character4    ,undoubtedly1       
moreover1 ,paul knew far more about     
,jesus than he has  seen fit1 in the    
,epistles1 to tell4 ,it must always be  
remembered  that the ,epistles do not   
contain the missionary preaching of     
,paul2  they are addressed to           
,christians1 in whose case much of the  
primary  instruction had already been   
given4 ,some things are omitted from the
  ,epistles1 therefore1 not because they
 were unimportant1 but on the  contrary 
just because they were fundamental2     
instruction about them  had to be given 
at the very beginning and except for    
special reasons  did not need to be     
repeated4 ,except for certain           
misunderstandings  which had arisen at  
,corinth1 for example1 ,paul would never
 have  set forth in his ,epistles the   
testimony by which the fact of the      
resurrection of ,jesus was established2 

yet that testimony1 he says1  was       
fundamental in his missionary preaching4
 ,if it were not for the  errorists at  
,corinth we should never have had the   
all-important  passage about the        
appearances of the risen ,christ4 ,it is
 appalling  to reflect what far-reaching
 conclusions would in that case have    
been drawn by modern scholars from the  
silence of ,paul4 ,so it is  also with  
the account of the institution of the   
,lord's ,supper in  #a ,cor4 xi4 #bc;ff4
 ,that account is inserted in the       
,epistles only  because of certain      
abuses which had happened to arise at   
,corinth4  ,elsewhere ,paul says        
absolutely nothing about the institution
 of  the ,supper2 indeed1 in the        
,epistles other than #a ,corinthians he 
says nothing about the ,supper at all4  
,yet the ,lord's ,supper was            
undoubtedly celebrated everywhere in the
 ,pauline churches1 and no  doubt was   
grounded everywhere in an account of its
 institution4  ,thus the resurrection   

appearances and the institution of the  
,lord's  ,supper1 despite the fact that 
they were absolutely fundamental in     
,paul's teaching1 appear each only once 
in the ,epistles4 ,may there  not then  
have been other things just as prominent
 in ,paul's teaching  which are not     
mentioned at all8 ,these two things are 
mentioned only  because of the          
misunderstandings that had arisen with  
regard to  them4 ,certain other things  
just as important may be omitted from   
the ,epistles only because in their case
 no misunderstandings had  happened to  
arise4 ,it must always be remembered    
that the ,epistles of  ,paul are        
addressed to special needs of the       
churches4 ,it cannot be  argued1        
therefore1 that what is not mentioned in
 the ,epistles was  not known to the    
apostle at all4    ,thus the incidental 
character of ,paul's references to the  
life and  teaching of ,jesus shows      
clearly that ,paul knew far more than he
 has  seen fit in the ,epistles to tell4

 ,the references make the impression  of
 being detached bits taken from a larger
 whole4 ,when1 for example1  ,paul says 
that the institution of the ,lord's     
,supper took place on  the night in     
which ,jesus was betrayed1 he           
presupposes on the part  of his readers 
an account of the betrayal1 and hence an
 account of  the traitor and of his     
position among the apostles4 ,so it is  
in  other cases where ,paul refers to   
the life and teaching of ,jesus4 ,the   
references can be explained only as     
presupposing a larger fund of           
information about the words and deeds of
 ,jesus4 ,unquestionably ,paul  included
 in his fundamental teaching an account 
of what ,jesus said  and did4           
,indeed1 if he had not done so1 he would
 have involved himself in  absurdity4   
,as ,j4 ,weiss has pointed out with     
admirable acuteness1 a  missionary      
preaching which demanded faith in ,jesus
 without telling  what sort of person   
,jesus was would have been              

preposterous4#hd  ,the hearers of ,paul 
were asked to stake their salvation upon
 the  redeeming work of ,jesus4 ,but who
 was this ,jesus8 ,the question could   
scarcely be avoided4 ,other redeemers1  
in the pagan religion of the  time1 were
 protected from such questions2 they    
were protected by the  mists of         
antiquity2 investigations about them    
were obviously out  of place4 ,but ,paul
 had given up the advantages of such    
vagueness4  ,the redeemer whom he       
proclaimed was one of his own           
contemporaries1  a ,jew who had lived   
but a few years before and had died the 
death  of a criminal4 ,investigation of 
this ,jesus was perfectly possible2     
,his brothers1 even1 were still alive4  
,who was ,he then8 ,did ,he suffer      
justly on the cross8 ,or was ,he the    
,righteous ,one8 ,such questions  could 
hardly be avoided4 ,and as a matter of  
fact they were not  avoided4 ,the       
incidental references in the ,epistles1 
scanty though  they are1 are sufficient 

to show that an account of the words and
  deeds of ,jesus formed an important   
part of the teaching of ,paul4      #hd 
,j4 ,weiss1 ,das lteste ,evangelium1    
#aijc1 pp4 #cc-ci4    ,the presumption  
is1 therefore1 that ,paul was a true    
disciple of  ,jesus4 ,he regarded       
himself as a disciple2 he was so        
regarded by  his contemporaries2 he made
 use of ,jesus' teaching and example4   
,but is this presumption justified8 ,was
 it the real ,jesus whom ,paul          
followed8 ,the question can be answered 
only by a comparison of what  is known  
about ,paul with what is known about    
,jesus4    ,but at the very beginning of
 the comparison1 a fundamental          
difficulty arises4 ,how may ,jesus be   
known8 ,paul is known1 through  his own 
letters4 ,but how about ,jesus8 ,the    
sources of information  about ,jesus are
 the four ,gospels4 ,but are the        
,gospels trustworthy8    ,if they are   
trustworthy1 then it will probably be   
admitted that  ,paul was a true disciple

 of ,jesus4 ,for the ,gospels1 taken as 
a  whole1 present a ,jesus like in      
essentials to that divine ,lord who  was
 sum and substance of the life of ,paul4
 ,the ,jesus of the ,gospels  is no mere
 prophet1 no mere inspired teacher of   
righteousness1  no mere revealer or     
interpreter of ,god4 ,he is1 on the     
contrary1  a supernatural person2 a     
heavenly ,redeemer come to earth for the
  salvation of men4 ,so much is usually 
being admitted to-day4 ,whatever  may   
have been the real facts about ,jesus1  
the ,gospels present a  supernatural    
,jesus4 ,this representation is         
contained not merely  in one of the     
,gospels2 it is contained in all of     
them4 ,the day is  past when the divine 
,christ of ,john could be confronted    
with a  human ,christ of ,mark4 ,on the 
contrary1 ,mark and ,john1 it is now    
maintained1 differ only in degree2 ,mark
 as well as ,john1 even  though it      
should be supposed that he does so less 
clearly and less  consistently1 presents

 a ,jesus similar in important respects 
to the  divine ,redeemer of the         
,epistles of ,paul4#he      #he ,see1   
for example1 ,j4 ,weiss1 ,das           
,urchristentum1 #aiad-aiag1 pp4    #edj1
 #edg1 #edh4    ,thus if ,paul be       
compared with the ,jesus of the         
,gospels1 there is  full agreement      
between the two4 ,the ,jesus of all the 
,gospels is a  supernatural person2 the 
,jesus of all the ,gospels is a         
,redeemer4  ,the ,son of ,man1 according
 to the shortest and if modern criticism
  be accepted the earliest of the       
,gospels1 came not to be ministered     
unto1 but to minister1 and to give his  
life a ransom for many 7,mk4  x4 #de74  
,but it is not necessary to depend upon 
details4 ,the very  choice of material  
in the ,gospels points to the same      
conclusion2 the  ,gospels like the      
,epistles of ,paul are more interested  
in the death  of ,jesus than in the     
details of ,his life4 ,and for the same 
reason4  ,the ,gospels1 like the        

,epistles of ,paul1 are interested in   
the death  of ,jesus because it was a   
ransom from sin4    ,but this similarity
 of the ,jesus of the ,gospels to the   
,christ of  the ,pauline ,epistles has  
led sometimes1 not to the recognition   
of ,paul as a disciple of ,jesus1 but to
 the hypothesis that the  ,gospels are  
dependent upon ,paul4 ,if the ,gospels  
are introducing into  their picture of  
,jesus elements derived not from the    
real ,jesus  but from the mythical      
,christ of the ,epistles1 then of course
 they  will display similarity to the   
,epistles2 but such similarity will     
scarcely be very significant4 ,in       
comparing the ,epistles with the        
,gospels1 the historian will then be    
comparing not ,paul with ,jesus1  but   
,paul with ,paul4    ,if1 therefore1    
,paul is to be compared with ,jesus1 it 
is said1 those  elements which are      
derived from ,paul must first be        
separated from  the ,gospels4 ,even     
after this separation has been          

accomplished1  however1 there remains in
 the ,gospel picture of ,jesus a certain
  amount of similarity to the ,pauline  
,christ2 it is generally admitted  that 
the process by which ,jesus was raised  
to the position of a  heavenly being was
 begun before the appearance of ,paul   
and was  continued in some quarters in  
more or less independence of him4 ,thus 
if ,paul is to be compared with the real
 ,jesus1 as distinguished  from the     
,christ of ,christian faith1 the        
historian1 it is said1 must  first      
separate from the ,gospel picture not   
merely those details  which were derived
 distinctly from ,paul1 but also the    
whole of  the supernatural element4#hf  
,mere literary criticism will not       
accomplish the task2 for even the       
earliest sources which can be           
distinguished in the ,gospels seem to   
lift ,jesus above the level  of ordinary
 humanity and present ,him not merely as
 an example for  faith but also as the  
object of faith4#hg ,even in the        

earliest  sources1 therefore1 the       
historian must distinguish genuine      
tradition  from dogmatic accretions2 he 
must separate the natural from the      
supernatural1 the believable from the   
unbelievable2 he must seek  to remove   
from the genuine figure of the ,galilean
 prophet the  tawdry ornamentation which
 has been hung about him by nave and    
unintelligent admirers4      #hf ,for   
what follows1 see1 in addition to the   
paper mentioned at    the beginning of  
the chapter1 ,history and ,faith1 in    
,princeton    ,theological ,review1     
xiii1 #aiae1 pp4 #ccg-cea4      #hg ,see
 ,denney1 ,jesus and the ,gospel1 #aiji4
    ,thus the ,jesus who is to be       
compared with ,paul1 according to the   
modern naturalistic theory1 is not the  
,jesus of the ,gospels2 he is  a ,jesus 
who can be rediscovered only through a  
critical process  within the ,gospels4  
,and that critical process is very      
difficult4 ,it  is certainly no easy    
matter to separate natural and          

supernatural  in the ,gospel picture of 
,jesus1 for the two are inextricably    
intertwined4 ,in pulling up the tares1  
the historian is in danger of  pulling  
up the wheat as well2 in the removal of 
the supernatural  elements from the     
story of ,jesus1 the whole of the story 
is in  danger of being destroyed4       
,certain radical spirits are not afraid 
of the consequence2 since the ,jesus of 
the ,gospels1 they say1 is a            
supernatural person1 ,he is not a real  
person2 no such person as this  ,jesus  
ever lived on earth4 ,such radicalism1  
of course1 is absurd4  ,the ,jesus of   
the ,gospels is certainly not the       
product of invention  or of myth2 ,he is
 rooted too deep in historical          
conditions2 ,he  towers too high above  
those who by any possibility could have 
produced ,him4 ,but the radical denials 
of the historicity of ,jesus  are not   
without interest4 ,they have at least   
called attention to  the arbitrariness  
with which the separation of historical 

from  unhistorical has been carried on  
in the production of the liberal        
,jesus4    ,but suppose the separation  
has been completed2 suppose the         
historical ,jesus has been discovered   
beneath the gaudy colors which  had     
almost hopelessly defaced ,his portrait4
 ,even then the troubles  of the        
historian are not at an end4 ,for this  
historical ,jesus1 this  human ,jesus of
 modern liberalism1 is a monstrosity2   
there is a  contradiction at the very   
center of ,his being4 ,the contradiction
 is  produced by ,his ,messianic        
consciousness4 ,the human ,jesus of     
modern  liberalism1 the pure and humble 
teacher of righteousness1 the one  who  
kept ,his own person out of ,his message
 and merely asked men to  have faith in 
,god like ,his faith--this ,jesus of    
modern liberalism  thought that ,he was 
to come with the clouds of heaven and be
 the  instrument in judging the earth6  
,if ,jesus was pure and unselfish  and  
of healthy mind1 how could ,he have     

applied to ,himself the  tremendous     
conception of the transcendent ,messiah8
 ,by some the  problem is avoided4      
,some1 like ,wrede1 deny that ,jesus    
ever presented  ,himself as the         
,messiah2 others1 like ,bousset1 are at 
least moving  in the same direction4    
,but such radicalism cannot be carried  
out4  ,the ,messianic element in the    
consciousness of ,jesus is rooted too   
deep in the sources ever to be removed  
by any critical process4 ,it  is        
established also by the subsequent      
development4 ,if ,jesus never  thought  
,himself to be the ,messiah and never   
presented ,himself as  such1 how did    
,his disciples come to regard ,him as   
the ,messiah after  ,his death8 ,why did
 they not simply say1 ,despite ,his     
death1 the  ,kingdom of ,god is coming8 
,why did they say rather1 ,despite ,his 
death1 ,he is the ,messiah8#hh ,they    
could only have done so if ,jesus  had  
already presented ,himself to them as   
,messiah when ,he had been  with them on

 earth4      #hh ,j4 ,weiss1 ,das       
,problem der ,entstehung des            
,christentums1 in    ,archiv fr         
,religionswissenschaft1 xvi1 #aiac1 p4  
#def4    ,in recent criticism1 such     
radicalism as that which has just been  
discussed is usually avoided4 ,the      
presence of the ,messianic  element in  
the consciousness of ,jesus cannot      
altogether be denied4  ,sometimes1      
indeed1 that element is even made the   
determining  factor in all of ,jesus'   
teaching4 ,so it is with the hypothesis 
of  consistent eschatology of ,a4       
,schweitzer and others4#hi ,according   
to that hypothesis ,jesus expected the  
,kingdom of ,god to come in  a          
catastrophic way in the very year in    
which he was carrying on  ,his ministry 
in ,galilee1 and all ,his teaching was  
intended to be  a preparation for the   
great catastrophe4 ,even the ethic of   
,jesus1  therefore1 is thought to have  
been constructed in view of the         
approaching end of the world1 and is    

thus regarded as unsuitable  for a      
permanent world order4 ,this hypothesis 
not only accepts the  ,messianic        
consciousness of ,jesus1 but in one     
direction at least it  even exaggerates 
the implications of that consciousness4 
#hi ,a4 ,schweitzer1 ,geschichte der    
,leben-,jesu-,forschung1 #aiac1 pp4     
#cij-ddc4    ,usually1 however1 this    
extreme also is avoided1 and the        
historian  pursues1 rather1 a policy of 
palliation4 ,jesus did come to regard   
,himself as the ,messiah1 it is said1   
but ,he did so only late in  ,his       
ministry and almost against ,his will4  
,when ,he found that the  people were   
devoted to sin1 and that ,he alone was  
fighting ,god's  battle1 ,he came to    
regard ,himself as ,god's chosen        
instrument in the  establishment of the 
,kingdom4 ,thus ,he had a tremendous    
consciousness  of a mission4 ,but the   
only category in which ,he could express
 that  consciousness of a mission was   
the category of ,messiahship4 ,in one   

form1 indeed1 that category was         
unsuitable2 ,jesus would have nothing   
to do with the political aspirations    
associated with the expected  king of   
,david's line4 ,but the expectation of  
the ,messiah existed  also in another   
form2 the ,messiah was sometimes        
regarded1 not as  a king of ,david's    
line1 but as the heavenly ,son of ,man  
alluded to  in ,daniel and more fully   
described in the ,similitudes of ,enoch4
  ,this transcendent form of            
,messiahship1 therefore1 was the form   
which ,jesus used4 ,but the form1 it is 
maintained1 is a matter of  indifference
 to us1 and it was not really essential 
to ,jesus2 what  was really essential   
was ,jesus' consciousness of nearness to
 ,god4    ,such palliative measures will
 not really solve the problem4 ,the     
problem is a moral and psychological    
problem4 ,how could a pure and  holy    
prophet of righteousness1 one whose     
humility and sanity have  made an       
indelible impression upon all subsequent

 generations--how  could such a one     
lapse so far from the sobriety and      
sanity of ,his  teaching as to regard   
,himself as the heavenly ,son of ,man   
who was to  be the instrument in judging
 the world8 ,the difficulty is felt by  
all thoughtful students who proceed upon
 naturalistic principles4  ,there is to 
such students1 as ,heitmller says1      
something almost  uncanny about         
,jesus4#ij ,and the difficulty is not   
removed by  putting the genesis of the  
,messianic consciousness late in ,jesus'
  life4 ,whether late or early1 ,jesus  
did regard ,himself as the  ,messiah1   
did regard ,himself as the one who was  
to come with the  clouds of heaven4     
,there lies the problem4 ,how could     
,jesus1 with ,his  humility and sobriety
 and strength1 ever have lapsed so far  
from the  path of sanity as to assume   
the central place in the ,kingdom of    
,god8      #ij ,heitmller1 ,jesus1      
#aiac1 p4 #ga4    ,here1 again1 radical 
minds have drawn the logical            

conclusions4 ,the  ,messianic           
consciousness1 they say1 is an example  
of megalomania2  ,jesus1 they say1 was  
insane4 ,such is said to be the         
diagnosis of  certain alienists4 ,and   
the diagnosis need cause no alarm4 ,very
  likely it is correct4 ,but the ,jesus 
who is being investigated by the        
alienists is not the ,jesus of the ,new 
,testament4 ,the liberal ,jesus1  if he 
ever existed1 may have been insane4 ,but
 that is not the ,jesus  whom the       
,christian loves4 ,the alienists are    
investigating a man who  thought he was 
divine and was not divine2 about one who
 thought ,he  was divine and was divine 
they have obviously nothing to say4     
,two difficulties1 therefore1 face the  
reconstruction of the liberal  ,jesus4  
,in the first place1 it is difficult to 
separate the natural  from the          
supernatural in the ,gospel picture of  
,jesus2 and in the  second place1 after 
the separation has been accomplished1   
the human  ,jesus who is left is found  

to be a monstrosity1 with a             
contradiction  at the very center of    
,his being4 ,such a ,jesus1 it may      
fairly be  maintained1 could never have 
existed on earth4    ,but suppose ,he   
did exist1 suppose the psychological    
impossibilities  of ,his character be   
ignored4 ,even then the difficulties of 
the  historian are not overcome4        
,another question remains4 ,how did this
  human ,jesus ever come to give place  
to the superhuman ,jesus of the  ,new   
,testament8 ,the transition evidently   
occurred at a very early  time4 ,it is  
complete in the ,epistles of ,paul4 ,and
 within ,paul's  experience it was      
certainly no late development2 on the   
contrary  it was evidently complete at  
the very beginning of his ,christian    
life2 the ,jesus in whom he trusted at  
the time of his conversion was          
certainly the heavenly ,christ of the   
,epistles4 ,but the conversion  occurred
 only a very few years1 at the most1    
after the crucifixion  of ,jesus4       

,moreover1 there is in the ,pauline     
,epistles not the  slightest trace of a 
conflict between the heavenly ,christ of
 ,paul  and any other ,jesus of the     
primitive ,jerusalem ,church2 apparently
  the ,christ of ,paul was also the     
,christ of those who had walked and     
talked with ,jesus of ,nazareth4 ,such  
is the evidence of the ,epistles4  ,it  
is confirmed by the ,gospels4 ,like     
,paul1 the ,gospels present no  mere    
teacher of righteousness1 but a heavenly
 ,redeemer4 ,yet the  ,gospels make the 
impression of being independent of      
,paul4 ,everywhere  the ,jesus that they
 present is most strikingly similar to  
the  ,christ of ,paul2 but nowhere--not 
even where ,jesus is made to teach  the 
redemptive significance of ,his death   
7,mk4 x4 #de7--;is there the  slightest 
evidence of literary dependence upon the
 ,epistles4 ,thus  the liberal ,jesus1  
if he ever existed1 has disappeared from
 the  pages of history2 all the sources 
agree in presenting a heavenly  ,christ4

 ,how shall such agreement be explained8
    ,it might conceivably be explained  
by the appearances of the risen         
,christ4 ,if1 at the very beginning of  
the ,church's life1 ,jesus  appeared to 
,his disciples1 after ,his death1 alive 
and in heavenly  glory1 it is           
conceivable that that experience might  
have originated  the lofty ,new         
,testament conception of ,jesus' person4
 ,but what in  turn caused that         
experience itself8 ,on naturalistic     
principles  the appearances of the risen
 ,christ can be explained only by an    
impression which the disciples already  
had of the majesty of ,jesus'  person4  
,if they had listened to lofty claims of
 ,jesus like those  which are recorded  
in the ,gospels1 if they had witnessed  
miracles  like the walking on the water 
or the feeding of the five thousand1    
then1 conceivably1 though not probably1 
they might have come to  believe that so
 great a person could not be holden of  
death1 and  this belief might have been 

sufficient1 without further miracle1 to 
induce the pathological experiences in  
which they thought they saw  ,him alive 
after ,his passion4 ,but if the         
miraculous be removed from  the life of 
,jesus1 a double portion of the         
miraculous must be heaped  up upon the  
appearances4 ,the smaller be the ,jesus 
whom the disciples  had known in        
,galilee1 the more unaccountable becomes
 the experience  which caused them to   
believe in ,his resurrection4 ,by one   
path or  another1 therefore1 the        
historian of ,christian origins is      
pushed off  from the safe ground of the 
phenomenal world toward the abyss of    
supernaturalism4 ,to account for the    
faith of the early ,church1 the         
supernatural must be found either in the
 life of ,jesus on earth1 or  else in   
the appearances of the risen ,christ4   
,but if the supernatural  is found in   
one place1 there is no objection to     
finding it in both  places4 ,and in both
 places it is found by the whole ,new   

,testament4    ,three difficulties1     
therefore1 beset the reconstruction of  
the  liberal ,jesus4 ,in the first      
place1 it is difficult to disengage     
,his picture from the miraculous        
elements which have defaced it in  the  
,gospels2 in the second place1 when the 
supposed historical ,jesus  has been    
reconstructed1 there is a moral         
contradiction at the center  of ,his    
being1 caused by ,his lofty claims2 in  
the third place1 it  is hard to see how1
 in the thinking of the early disciples1
 the  purely human ,jesus gave place    
without the slightest struggle to  the  
heavenly ,christ of the ,pauline        
,epistles and of the whole ,new         
,testament4    ,but suppose all the     
difficulties have been removed4 ,suppose
 a human  ,jesus has been reconstructed4
 ,what is the result of comparing that  
human ,jesus with ,paul8 ,at first sight
 there seems to be nothing but          
contradiction4 ,but closer examination  
discloses points of agreement4  ,the    

agreement between ,jesus and ,paul      
extends even to those elements  in the  
,gospel account of ,jesus which are     
accepted by modern  naturalistic        
criticism4    ,in the first place1      
,jesus and ,paul present the same view  
of the  ,kingdom of ,god4 ,the term     
kingdom of ,god is not very frequent in 
the ,epistles2 but it is used as though 
familiar to the readers1 and  when it   
does occur1 it has the same meaning as  
in the teaching of  ,jesus4 ,the        
similarity appears1 in the first place1 
in a negative  feature--both in ,jesus  
and in ,paul1 the idea of the ,kingdom  
is  divorced from all political and     
materialistic associations4 ,that  fact 
may seem to us to be a matter of course4
 ,but in the ,judaism of  the first     
century it was far from being a matter  
of course4 ,on the  contrary1 it meant  
nothing less than a revolution in       
thought and in  life4 ,how did ,paul1   
the patriot and the ,pharisee1 come to  
separate  the thought of the ,kingdom   

from political associations8 ,how did he
  come to do so even if he had come to  
think that the ,messiah had  already    
appeared8 ,how did he come to do so     
unless he was influenced  in some way by
 the teaching of ,jesus8 ,but the       
similarity is not  merely negative4 ,in 
positive aspects also1 the ,kingdom of  
,god in  ,paul is similar to that which 
appears in the teaching of ,jesus4 ,both
  in ,jesus and in ,paul1 the           
implications of entrance are ethical4   
,or  know ye not1 says ,paul1 that the  
unrighteous shall not inherit the       
kingdom of ,god 7#a ,cor4 vi4 #i74 ,then
 follows1 after these words1  as in     
,gal4 v4 #ai-ba1 a long list of sins    
which exclude a man from  participation 
in the ,kingdom4 ,paul is here          
continuing faithfully  the teaching of  
,him who said1 ,repent ye2 for the      
kingdom of heaven  is at hand4 ,finally 
both in ,jesus and in ,paul the ,kingdom
 appears  partly as present and partly  
as future4 ,in the above passages  from 

,galatians and #a ,corinthians1 for     
example1 and in #a ,cor4 xv4  #ej1 it is
 future2 whereas in such passages as    
,rom4 xiv4 #ag 7for  the kingdom of ,god
 is not eating and drinking but         
righteousness  and peace and joy in the 
,holy ,spirit71 the present aspect is   
rather in view4 ,the same two aspects of
 the ,kingdom appear also in  the       
teaching of ,jesus2 all attempts at     
making ,jesus' conception  thoroughly   
eschatological have failed4 ,both in    
,jesus and in ,paul1  therefore1 the    
,kingdom of ,god is both transcendent   
and ethical4  ,both in ,jesus and in    
,paul1 finally1 the coming of the       
,kingdom means  joy as well as judgment4
 ,when ,paul says that the ,kingdom of  
,god is  righteousness and peace and joy
 in the ,holy ,ghost1 he is like  ,jesus
 not merely in word but in the whole    
spirit of the message2  ,jesus also     
proclaimed the coming of the ,kingdom as
 a gospel4    ,in the second place1     
,paul is like ,jesus in his doctrine of 

the  fatherhood of ,god4 ,that doctrine1
 it will probably be admitted1 was      
characteristic of ,jesus2 indeed the    
tendency in certain quarters  is to     
regard it as the very sum and substance 
of all that ,jesus  said4 ,certainly no 
parallel to ,jesus' presentation of ,god
 as ,father  has been found in          
extra-,christian literature4 ,the term  
father is  indeed applied to ,god here  
and there in the ,old ,testament4 ,but  
in  the ,old ,testament it is usually in
 relation to the people of ,israel  that
 ,god is thought of as ,father rather   
than in relation to the  individual4    
,even in the ,old ,testament1 it is     
true1 the conception of  the fatherhood 
of ,god is not without importance4 ,the 
consciousness  of belonging to ,god's   
chosen people and thus being under      
,god's  fatherly care was immensely     
valuable for the life of the individual 
,israelite2 it was no mere product of an
 unsatisfying state religion  like the  
religions of ,greece or ,rome4 ,there   

was preparation in  ,old ,testament     
revelation1 here as elsewhere1 for the  
coming of  the ,messiah4 ,in ,jewish    
literature outside of the ,old          
,testament1  moreover1 and in rabbinical
 sources1 the conception of ,god as     
,father  is not altogether absent4#ia   
,but it appears comparatively seldom1   
and it lacks altogether the true content
 of ,jesus' teaching4 ,despite  all     
previous uses of the word father as     
applied to ,god1 ,jesus  was ushering in
 a new era when ,he taught ,his         
disciples to say1 ,our  ,father which   
art in heaven4      #ia ,bousset1 ,die  
,religion des ,judentums1 #bte ,aufl41  
#aijf1 pp4    #dcb-dcd4    ,this        
conception of the fatherhood of ,god    
appears in ,paul in just  the same way  
as in ,jesus4 ,in ,paul as well as in   
,jesus it is not  something to be turned
 to occasionally2 on the contrary it is 
one of  the constituent elements of the 
religious life4 ,it is no wonder that   
the words1 ,god our ,father1 appear     

regularly at the beginnings of  the     
,epistles4 ,the fatherhood of ,god in   
,paul is not something to be  argued    
about or defended2 it is altogether a   
matter of course4 ,but  it has not lost1
 through repetition1 one whit of its    
freshness4 ,the  name ,father applied to
 ,god in ,paul is more than a bare      
title2 it  is the welling up of the     
depths of the soul4 ,abba1 ,father on   
the  lips of ,paul's converts was       
exactly the same1 not only in form but  
also in deepest import1 as the word     
which ,jesus first taught ,his          
disciples when they said to ,him1 ,lord1
 teach us to pray4    ,but the          
fatherhood of ,god in ,paul is like the 
teaching of ,jesus  in even more        
definite ways than in the fervor of the 
religious  life which it evokes4 ,it is 
also like ,jesus' teaching in being the 
possession1 not of the world1 but of the
 household of faith4 ,if1  indeed1 the  
fatherhood of ,god in ,jesus' teaching  
were like the  fatherhood of ,god in    

modern liberalism--a relationship which 
,god  sustains toward men as men--then  
it would be as far removed as  possible 
from the teaching of ,paul4 ,but as a   
matter of fact1 both  ,paul and ,jesus  
reserved the term ,father for the       
relation in which  ,god stands to the   
disciples of ,jesus4 ,one passage1      
indeed 7,matt4 v4  #de2 ,luke vi4 #ce71 
has been quoted as making ,god the      
,father of all  men4 ,but only by a     
strange misinterpretation4 ,it is       
strange how in  the day of our boasted  
grammatico-historical exegesis1 so      
egregious  an error can be allowed to   
live4 ,the prejudices of the reader have
  triumphed here over all exegetical    
principles2 a vague modernism has  been 
attributed to the sternest1 as well as  
most merciful1 ,prophet  who ever walked
 upon earth4 ,when ,jesus says1 ,love   
your enemies1 and  pray for them that   
persecute you2 that ye may be sons of   
your ,father  who is in heaven3 for he  
maketh his sun to rise on the evil and  

the  good1 and sendeth rain on the just 
and the unjust1 ,he certainly  does not 
mean that ,god is the ,father of all men
 both evil and good4  ,god cares for    
all1 but ,he is not said to be the      
,father of all4 ,on  the contrary1 it   
may almost be said that the very point  
of the  passage is that ,god cares for  
all although ,he is not the ,father of  
all4 ,that it is which makes ,him the   
example for those who are to do  good   
not merely to friends or brothers but   
also to enemies4    ,this interpretation
 does not mean that ,god does not stand 
toward all  men in a relation analogous 
to that of a father to his children2  it
 does not mean that ,he does not love   
all or care for all4 ,but  it does mean 
that however close may be the           
relationship which  ,god sustains to all
 men1 the lofty term ,father is reserved
 for a  relationship which is far more  
intimate still4 ,jesus extends to all   
men those common blessings which the    
modern preacher sums up in  the term    

fatherhood of ,god2 but ,he extends to  
,his own disciples  not only those      
blessings but infinitely more4 ,it is   
not the men  of the world--not the      
publicans1 not the ,gentiles--who can   
say1 according to the teaching of       
,jesus1 ,our ,father which art in       
,heaven4 ,rather it is the little group 
of ,jesus' disciples--which  little     
group1 however1 all without exception   
are freely invited to  join4    ,so it  
is exactly also in the teaching of      
,paul4 ,god stands1 according  to ,paul1
 in a vital relation to all men4 ,he is 
the author of the  being of all2 ,he    
cares for all2 ,he has planted ,his law 
in the hearts  of all4 ,he stands thus  
in a relation toward all which is       
analogous  to that of father to child4  
,the ,book of ,acts is quite in accord  
with  the ,epistles when it makes ,paul 
say of all men1 ,for we are also ,his   
offspring4 ,but in ,paul just as in     
,jesus the lofty term ,father  is       
reserved for a more intimate            

relationship4 ,paul accepts all the     
truth of natural religion2 all the truth
 that reappears in the vague  liberalism
 of modern times4 ,but he adds to it the
 truth of the  gospel4 ,those are truly 
sons of ,god1 he says1 who have been    
received  by adoption into ,god's       
household1 and in whose hearts ,god's   
,spirit  cries1 ,abba1 ,father4         
,there was nothing narrow about such a  
gospel2 for the door of the  household  
of faith was opened wide to all4 ,jesus 
had died in order  to open that door1   
and the apostle went up and down the    
world1  enduring peril upon peril in    
order to bring men in4 ,there was need  
for such service1 because of sin4       
,neither in ,jesus nor in ,paul  is sin 
covered up1 nor the necessity of a great
 transformation  concealed4 ,jesus came 
not to reveal to men that they were     
already  children of ,god1 but to make  
them ,god's children by ,his redeeming  
work4    ,in the third place1 ,paul is  
like ,jesus in presenting a doctrine  of

 grace4 ,of course he is like the ,jesus
 of the ,gospels2 for the  ,jesus of the
 ,gospels declared that the ,son of ,man
 came to give ,his  life a ransom for   
many4 ,but ,he is even like the ,jesus  
of modern  reconstruction4 ,even the    
liberal ,jesus taught a doctrine of     
grace4  ,he taught1 it for example1 in  
the parables of the laborers in the     
vineyard and of the servant coming in   
from the field4 ,in those two  parables 
,jesus expressed ,his opposition to a   
religion of works1  a religion which can
 open an account with ,god and seek to  
obtain  salvation by merit4#ib          
,salvation1 according to ,jesus1 is a   
matter  of ,god's free grace2 it is     
something which ,god gives to whom ,he  
will4 ,the same great doctrine really   
runs all through the teaching  of       
,jesus2 it is the root of ,his          
opposition to the scribes and           
,pharisees2 it determines the confidence
 with which ,he taught ,his  disciples  
to draw near to ,god4 ,but it is the    

same doctrine1 exactly1  which appears  
in ,paul4 ,the ,paul who combated the   
legalists in  ,galatia1 like the ,jesus 
who combated the scribes and ,pharisees1
 was  contending for a ,god of grace4   
#ib ,compare ,w4 ,morgan1 ,the ,religion
 and ,theology of ,paul1 #aiag1    p4   
#aee3 ,the essential import of ,paul's  
doctrine of justification    by faith is
 all contained in the two parables of   
the ,pharisee and    the publican and   
the servant coming in from the field4   
,let it not be objected that ,jesus     
maintained also the expectation  of a   
judgment4 ,for in this particular also  
,he was followed by  ,paul4 ,paul also1 
despite his doctrine of grace1 expected 
that  the ,christians would stand before
 the judgment-seat4 ,and it may  be     
remembered in passing that both in      
,jesus and in ,paul the  judgment-seat  
is a judgment-seat of ,christ4    ,in   
the fourth place1 the ethical teaching  
of ,paul is strikingly  similar to that 
of ,jesus4 ,it is necessary only to     

point to the  conception of love as the 
fulfilling of the law1 and to the       
substitution for external rules of the  
great principles of justice  and of     
mercy4 ,these things may seem to us to  
be matters of course4  ,but they were   
not matters of course in the ,jewish    
environment of  ,paul4 ,similarity in   
this field between ,jesus and ,paul can 
hardly  be a matter of chance4 ,many    
resemblances have been pointed out in   
detail between the ethical teaching of  
,jesus and that of ,paul4  ,but the most
 important is the one which is most     
obvious1 and which  just for that reason
 has sometimes escaped notice4 ,paul and
 ,jesus1  in their ethical teaching1 are
 similar because of the details of  what
 they say2 but they are still more      
similar because of what they  do not    
say4 ,and they are similar in what they 
do not say despite  the opposition of   
their countrymen4 ,many parallels for   
words of  ,jesus may have been found in 
rabbinical sources4 ,but so much more1  

alas1 is also found there4 ,that        
oppressive plus of triviality  and      
formalism places an impassable gulf     
between ,jesus and the  ,jewish         
teachers4 ,but ,paul belongs with       
,jesus1 on the same side of  the gulf4  
,in his ethic there is no formalism1 no 
triviality1 no  casuistry--there is     
naught but love1 joy1 peace1            
longsuffering1  kindness1 goodness1     
faithfulness1 meekness1 self-control4   
,what has  become of all the rest8 ,was 
it removed by the genius of ,paul8 ,it  
is  strange that two such men of genius 
should have arisen independently  and at
 the same time4 ,or was the terrible    
plus of ,pharisaic  formalism and       
triviality burned away from ,paul when  
the light shone  around him on the way  
to ,damascus and he fell at the feet of 
the  great ,teacher8    ,points of      
contact between ,jesus and ,paul have   
just been pointed out  in detail1 and   
the list of resemblances could be       
greatly increased4  ,the likeness of    

,paul to ,jesus extends even to those   
features which  appear in the ,jesus of 
modern liberalism4 ,what is more        
impressive1  however1 than all          
similarity in detail is the similarity  
in the  two persons taken each as a     
whole4 ,the ,gospels are more than a    
collection of sayings and anecdotes2 the
 ,pauline ,epistles are more  than a    
collection of reasoned discussions4 ,in 
the ,gospels1 a person  is revealed1 and
 another person in the ,epistles4 ,and  
the two persons  belong together4 ,it is
 impossible to establish that fact fully
 by  detailed argument any more than it 
is possible to explain exactly  why any 
two persons are friends to-day4 ,but the
 fact is plain to any  sympathetic      
reader4 ,the writer of the ,pauline     
,epistles would have  been at home in   
the company of ,jesus of ,nazareth4     
,what then was the true relation between
 ,paul and ,jesus8 ,it has been  shown  
that ,paul regarded himself as a        
disciple of ,jesus1 that he  was so     

regarded by those who had been ,jesus'  
friends1 that he had  abundant          
opportunity for acquainting himself with
 ,jesus' words and  deeds1 that he does 
refer to them occasionally1 that he     
could have  done so oftener if he had   
desired1 that the imitation of ,jesus   
found  a place in his life1 and that his
 likeness to ,jesus extends even  to    
those elements in ,jesus' life and      
teaching which are accepted  by modern  
naturalistic criticism as authentic4 ,at
 this point the  problem is left by the 
great mass of recent investigators4     
,wrede is  thought to be refuted        
already2 the investigator triumphantly  
writes  his ,q4 ,e4 ,d41 and passes on  
to something else4    ,but in reality   
the problem has not even been touched4  
,it has been  shown that the influence  
of ,jesus upon ,paul was somewhat       
greater  than ,wrede supposed4 ,but that
 does not make ,paul a disciple of      
,jesus4 ,the true relationships of a man
 are determined not by  things that lie 

on the periphery of his life1 but by    
what is  central#ic--;central both in   
his own estimation and in his influence 
upon subsequent generations4 ,and what  
was central in ,paul was  certainly not 
the imitation of ,jesus4 ,at that point1
 ,wrede was  entirely correct2 he has   
never really been silenced by the chorus
  of protest with which his startling   
little book was received4 ,it is        
futile1 therefore1 to point to the      
influence of ,jesus upon ,paul in       
detail4 ,such a method may be useful in 
correcting exaggerations1 but  it does  
not touch the real question4 ,the plain 
fact remains that if  imitation of      
,jesus had been central in the life of  
,paul1 as it is  central1 for example1  
in modern liberalism1 then the ,epistles
 would  be full of the words and deeds  
of ,jesus4 ,it is insufficient to point 
to the occasional character of the      
,epistles4 ,no doubt the ,epistles  are 
addressed to special needs2 no doubt    
,paul knew far more about  ,jesus than  

in the ,epistles he has found occasion  
to tell4 ,but there  are passages in the
 ,epistles where the current of ,paul's 
religious  life runs full and free1     
where even after the lapse of centuries1
  even through the dull medium of the   
printed page1 it sweeps the  heart of   
the sympathetic reader on with it in a  
mighty flood4 ,and  those passages are  
not concerned with the details of       
,jesus' earthly  life4 ,they are1       
rather1 the great theological passages  
of the  ,epistles--the second chapter of
 ,galatians1 the fifth chapter of #b    
,corinthians1 and the eighth chapter of 
,romans4 ,in these chapters1  religion  
and theology are blended in a union     
which no critical  analysis can ever    
possibly dissolve2 these passages reveal
 the very  center of ,paul's life4      
#ic ,wrede1 ,paulus1 #aijd1 p4 #ic      
7,english ,translation1 ,paul1    #aijg1
 p4 #afa74    ,the details of ,jesus'   
earthly ministry no doubt had an        
important  place in the thinking of     

,paul4 ,but they were important1 not as 
an  end in themselves1 but as a means to
 an end4 ,they revealed the  character  
of ,jesus2 they showed why ,he was      
worthy to be trusted4  ,but they did not
 show what ,he had done for ,paul4 ,the 
story of ,jesus  revealed what ,jesus   
had done for others3 ,he had healed the 
sick2 ,he  had given sight to the blind2
 ,he had raised the dead4 ,but for ,paul
  ,he had done something far greater    
than all these things--for ,paul ,he    
had died4    ,the religion of ,paul1 in 
other words1 is a religion of           
redemption4  ,jesus1 according to ,paul1
 came to earth not to say something1 but
  to do something2 ,he was primarily not
 a teacher1 but a ,redeemer4  ,he came1 
not to teach men how to live1 but to    
give them a new life  through ,his      
atoning death4 ,he was1 indeed1 also a  
teacher1 and ,paul  attended to ,his    
teaching4 ,but ,his teaching was all in 
vain unless  it led to the final        
acceptance of ,his redemptive work4 ,not

 the  details of ,jesus' life1          
therefore1 but the redemptive acts of   
death  and resurrection are at the      
center of the religion of ,paul4 ,the   
teaching and example of ,jesus1         
according to ,paul1 are valuable only   
as a means to an end1 valuable in order 
that through a revelation  of ,jesus'   
character saving faith may be induced1  
and valuable  thereafter in order that  
the saving work may be brought to its   
fruition in holy living4 ,but all that  
,jesus said and did was for the  purpose
 of the ,cross4 ,he loved me1 says      
,paul1 and gave ,himself  for me4 ,there
 is the heart and core of the religion  
of ,paul4    ,jesus1 according to ,paul1
 therefore1 was not a teacher1 but a    
,redeemer4 ,but was ,paul right8 ,was   
,jesus really a ,redeemer1 or was  ,he  
only a teacher8 ,if ,he was only a      
teacher1 then ,paul was no  true        
follower of ,his4 ,for in that case1    
,paul has missed the true  import of    
,jesus' life4 ,compared with that one   

central error1 small  importance is to  
be attributed to the influence which    
,jesus may have  exerted upon ,paul here
 and there4 ,wrede1 therefore1 was      
exactly  right in his formulation of the
 question4 ,paul regarded ,jesus as  a  
,redeemer4 ,if ,jesus was not a         
,redeemer1 then ,paul was no true       
follower of ,jesus1 but the founder of a
 new religion4 ,the liberal  theologians
 have tried to avoid the issue4 ,they   
have pointed out  exaggerations2 they   
have traced the influence of ,jesus upon
 ,paul  in detail2 they have            
distinguished religion from theology1   
and  abandoning the theology of ,paul   
they have sought to derive his  religion
 from ,jesus of ,nazareth4 ,it is all   
very learned and very  eloquent4 ,but it
 is also entirely futile4 ,despite the  
numerous  monographs on ,jesus and      
,paul1 ,wrede was entirely correct4 ,he 
was  correct1 that is1 not in his       
conclusions1 but in his statement of    
the question4 ,he was correct in his    

central contention--,paul was no  true  
disciple of the liberal ,jesus4 ,if     
,jesus was what the liberal  theologians
 represent ,him as being--a teacher of  
righteousness1 a  religious genius1 a   
guide on the way to ,god--then not      
,jesus but  ,paul was the true founder  
of historic ,christianity4 ,for historic
  ,christianity1 like the religion of   
,paul1 is a religion of redemption4     
,certainly the separation of religion   
from theology in ,paul must be          
abandoned4 ,was it a mere theory when   
,paul said of ,jesus ,christ1  ,he loved
 me and gave ,himself for me8 ,was it   
merely theological  speculation when he 
said1 ,one died for all1 therefore all  
died2  and he died for all1 that they   
that live should no longer live unto    
themselves1 but unto him who for their  
sakes died and rose again8  ,was it mere
 theology when he said1 ,far be it from 
me to glory save  in the cross of our   
,lord ,jesus ,christ8 ,was this mere    
theological  speculation8 ,surely not4  

,surely it was religion--warm1 living   
religion4 ,if this was not true         
religion1 then where can religion  ever 
be found8 ,but the passages just quoted 
are not passages which  deal with the   
details of ,jesus' life2 they are not   
passages which  deal with general       
principles of love and grace1 and       
fatherliness and  brotherliness4 ,on the
 contrary1 they deal with just the thing
 most  distasteful to the modern liberal
 ,church2 they deal with the atoning    
death of the ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 by   
which ,he took our sins upon ,him  and  
bare them in ,his own body on the tree4 
,the matter is perfectly  plain4        
,religion in ,paul does not exist apart 
from theology1 and  theology does not   
exist apart from religion4              
,christianity1 according  to ,paul1 is  
both a life and a doctrine--but         
logically the doctrine  comes first4    
,the life is the expression of the      
doctrine and not  vice versa4 ,theology1
 as it appears in ,paul1 is not a       

product of  ,christian experience1 but a
 setting forth of those facts by which  
,christian experience has been produced4
 ,if1 then1 the theology of  ,paul was  
derived from extra-,christian sources1  
his religion must be  abandoned also4   
,the whole of ,paulinism is based upon  
the redemptive  work of ,jesus ,christ4 
,thus ,paul was a true follower of      
,jesus if ,jesus was a divine           
,redeemer1 come from heaven to die for  
the sins of men2 he was  not a true     
follower of ,jesus if ,jesus was a mere 
revealer of  the fatherhood of ,god4    
,paulinism was not based upon a         
,galilean  prophet4 ,it was based either
 upon the ,son of ,god who came to earth
  for men's salvation and still holds   
communion with those who  trust ,him1 or
 else it was based upon a colossal      
error4 ,but if the  latter alternative  
be adopted1 the error was not only      
colossal1  but also unaccountable4 ,it  
is made more unaccountable by all that  
has been said above1 all that the       

liberal theologians have helped  to     
establish1 about the nearness of ,paul  
to ,jesus4 ,if ,paul really  stood so   
near to ,jesus1 if he really came under 
,jesus' influence1  if he really was    
intimate with ,jesus' friends1 how could
 he have  misinterpreted so completely  
the significance of ,jesus' person2 how 
could he have substituted for the       
teacher of righteousness who had  really
 lived in ,palestine the heavenly       
,redeemer of the ,epistles8  ,no        
satisfactory answer has yet been given4 
,in the relation between  ,jesus and    
,paul the historian discovers a problem 
which forces him  on toward a           
,copernican revolution in all his       
thinking1 which leads  him to ground his
 own salvation and the hope of this     
world no longer  in millions of acts of 
sinful men or in the gradual progress of
  civilization1 but simply and solely in
 one redemptive act of the  ,lord of    
,glory4          ,,chapter ,v    ,,the  
,,jewish ,,environment                  

,,chapter ,v    ,,the ,,jewish          
,,environment      ,of the three ways in
 which1 upon naturalistic principles1   
the  genesis of the religion of ,paul   
has been explained1 one has been        
examined1 and has been found wanting4   
,paulinism1 it has been shown1  was not 
based upon the ,jesus of modern         
liberalism4 ,if ,jesus was  simply a    
teacher of righteousness1 a revealer of 
,god1 then the  religion of ,paul was   
not derived from ,him4 ,for the religion
 of ,paul  was a religion of redemption4
    ,but if the religion of ,paul was   
not derived from the ,jesus of modern   
liberalism1 whence was it derived8 ,it  
may1 of course1 have been  derived from 
the divine ,redeemer2 the ,jesus whom   
,paul presupposes  may have been the    
,jesus who actually lived in ,palestine4
 ,but that  explanation involves the    
intrusion of the supernatural into the  
course of history2 it is therefore      
rejected by the modern mind4  ,other    
explanations1 therefore1 are being      

sought4 ,these other  explanations are  
alike in that they derive the religion  
of ,paul from  sources independent of   
,jesus of ,nazareth4 ,two such          
explanations have  been proposed4       
,according to one1 the religion of ,paul
 was derived  from contemporary         
,judaism2 according to the other1 it was
 derived  from the paganism of the      
,greco-,roman world4 ,the present       
chapter will  deal with the former of   
these two explanations--with the        
explanation  which derives the religion 
of ,paul from contemporary ,judaism4    
,this explanation is connected          
especially with the names of ,wrede#id  
and ,brckner4#ie ,it has1 however1      
seldom been maintained in any  exclusive
 way1 but enters into combination with  
other hypotheses4  ,indeed1 in itself it
 is obviously insufficient2 it will     
hardly  explain the idea of redemption  
in the religion of ,paul4 ,but it is    
thought to explain1 if not the idea of  
redemption1 at least the  conception of 

the ,redeemer's person1 and from the    
conception of  the ,redeemer's person   
the idea of redemption might in some way
 be  derived4 ,the hypothesis of ,wrede 
and ,brckner1 in other words1 seeks  to 
explain not so much the soteriology as  
the ,christology of ,paul2  it derives  
from the pre-,christian ,jewish         
conception of the ,messiah  the ,pauline
 conception of the heavenly ,christ4 ,in
 particular1 it  seeks to explain the   
matter-of-course way in which in the    
,epistles  the ,pauline ,christ is      
everywhere presupposed but nowhere      
defended4  ,apparently ,paul was not    
aware that his ,christology might       
provoke  dissent4 ,this attitude is very
 difficult to explain on the basis of   
the ordinary liberal reconstruction2 it 
is difficult to explain if  the ,pauline
 ,christology was derived by a process  
of development from  the historical     
,jesus4 ,for if it had been so derived1 
its newness  and revolutionary character
 would naturally have appeared4 ,as a   

matter of fact1 however1 ,paul does not 
regard it as anything new2 he  treats   
his doctrine of ,christ as though it    
were firmly established  and required no
 defense4 ,how shall this confident     
attitude of the  apostle be explained8  
,it is to be explained1 ,wrede says1 by 
the  theology of contemporary ,judaism4 
,paul was so confident that his         
conception of ,christ could not be      
regarded as an innovation because  as a 
matter of fact it was not an innovation2
 it was nothing but the  pre-,christian 
,jewish notion of the ,messiah4 ,the    
,pauline conception  of ,christ was thus
 firmly fixed in the mind of ,paul and  
in the minds  of many of his            
contemporaries long before the event on 
the road to  ,damascus2 all that        
happened at that time was the           
identification  of the ,christ whom     
,paul had believed in all along with    
,jesus of  ,nazareth1 and that          
identification1 because of the          
meagerness of  ,paul's knowledge of     

,jesus1 did not really bring any        
fundamental  change in the ,christology 
itself4 ,after the conversion as well as
  before it1 the ,christ of ,paul was   
simply the ,christ of the ,jewish       
apocalypses4      #id ,see p4 #bf1      
footnote #b4      #ie ,see p4 #bg1      
footnote #a4    ,in order that this     
hypothesis may be examined1 it will be  
advisable  to begin with a brief general
 survey of the ,jewish environment of   
,paul4 ,the survey will necessarily be  
of the most cursory character1  and it  
will not be based upon original         
research4 ,but it may serve  to clear   
the way for the real question at issue4 
,fortunately the  ground has been       
covered rather thoroughly by recent     
investigators4  ,in dependence upon     
,schrer and ,charles and others1 even a 
layman may  hope to arrive at the most  
obvious facts4 ,and it is only the most 
obvious facts which need now be         
considered4    ,three topics only will  
be discussed1 and they only in the most 

cursory way4 ,these three topics are    
7#a7 the divisions within  ,judaism1    
7#b7 the ,law1 7#c7 the ,messiah4       
,the most obvious division within the   
,judaism of ,paul's day is  the division
 between the ,judaism of ,palestine and 
that of the  ,dispersion4 ,the ,jews of 
,palestine1 for the most part1 spoke    
,aramaic2  those of the ,dispersion     
spoke ,greek4 ,with the difference of   
language  went no doubt in some cases a 
difference in habits of thought4 ,but   
exaggerations should be avoided4        
,certainly it is a serious error to     
represent the ,judaism of the           
,dispersion as being universally or even
  generally a liberal ,judaism1 inclined
 to break down the strict  requirements 
of the ,law4 ,the vivid descriptions of 
the ,book of ,acts  point in the        
opposite direction4 ,opposition to the  
,gentile mission  of ,paul prevailed    
among the ,hellenists of the ,dispersion
 as well  as among the ,hebrews of      
,palestine4 ,on the whole1 although no  

doubt  here and there individuals were  
inclined to modify the requirements     
imposed upon proselytes1 or even were   
influenced by the thought of  the       
,gentile world1 the ,jews of the first  
century must be thought of  as being a  
strangely unified people1 devoted to the
 ,mosaic ,law and  jealous of their     
,god-given prerogatives4    ,at any     
rate1 it is a grave error to explain the
 ,gentile mission of  ,paul as springing
 by natural development from a liberal  
,judaism of  the ,dispersion4 ,for even 
if such a liberal ,judaism existed1     
,paul did  not belong to it4 ,he tells  
us in no uncertain terms that he was a  
,hebrew1 not a ,hellenist2 inwardly1    
therefore1 despite his birth in         
,tarsus1 he was a ,jew of ,palestine4   
,no doubt the impressions received  from
 the ,greek city where he was born were 
of great importance in  his preparation 
for his life-work2 it was no mere       
chance1 but a  dispensation of ,god1    
that the apostle to the ,gentiles spent 

his  earliest years in a seat of        
,gentile culture4 ,but it was ,jerusalem
  rather than ,tarsus which determined  
,paul's outlook upon life4 ,at  any     
rate1 however great or however little   
was the influence of his  boyhood home1 
,paul was not a liberal ,jew2 for he    
tells us that he  was a ,pharisee1 more 
exceedingly zealous than his            
contemporaries for  the traditions of   
his fathers4    ,birth in ,tarsus1      
therefore1 did not mean for ,paul any   
adherence  to a liberal ,judaism1 as    
distinguished from the strict ,judaism  
of  ,palestine4 ,according to           
,montefiore1 a popular ,jewish writer of
  the present day1 it even meant the    
exact opposite2 the ,judaism of  the    
,dispersion1 ,montefiore believes1 was  
not more liberal1 but  less liberal1    
than the ,judaism of ,palestine2 it was 
from ,tarsus1  ,montefiore thinks1 that 
,paul derived his gloomy view of sin1   
and  his repellent conception of the    
wrath of ,god4 ,palestinian ,judaism  of

 the first century1 according to        
,montefiore1 was probably like  the     
rabbinical ,judaism of #ejj ,a4 ,d41 and
 the rabbinical ,judaism  of #ejj ,a4   
,d41 contrary to popular opinion1 was a 
broad-minded  rgime which united        
devotion to the ,law with confidence in 
the  forgiveness of ,god4#if ,this      
curious reversal of the usual opinion   
is of course open to serious objection4 
,how does ,montefiore know  that the    
,judaism of the ,dispersion was less    
liberal and held a  gloomier view of sin
 than the ,judaism of ,palestine8 ,the  
only  positive evidence seems to be     
derived from #d ,ezra1 which1 with the  
other apocalypses1 in an entirely       
unwarranted manner1 is apparently  made 
to be a witness to the ,judaism of the  
,dispersion4 ,and were  the rabbinical  
,judaism of #ejj ,a4 ,d4 and the        
,palestinian ,judaism of  #ej ,a4 ,d4   
really characterized by that sweet      
reasonableness which  ,montefiore       
attributes to them8 ,there is at least  

one testimony to  the contrary--the     
testimony found in the words of ,jesus4 
#if ,montefiore1 ,judaism and ,st4      
,paul1 #aiad4 ,compare ,emmet1 ,the     
,fourth ,book of ,esdras and ,st4 ,paul1
 in ,expository ,times1 xxvii1          
#aiae-aiaf1 pp4 #eea-eef4    ,distinct  
from the question of fact is the        
question of value4  ,but with regard to 
that question also1 ,montefiore's       
opinion may  be criticized4 ,it may well
 be doubted whether the easy-going      
belief in the complacency of ,god1      
celebrated by ,montefiore as            
characteristic of ,judaism1 was1 if it  
ever existed1 superior to  the gloomy   
questionings of #d ,ezra4 ,certainly    
from the ,christian  point of view it   
was not superior4 ,in its shallow view  
of sin1 in  its unwillingness to face   
the ultimate problems of sin and death1 
the ,jewish liberalism of ,montefiore is
 exactly like the so-called  ,christian 
liberalism of the modern ,church4 ,and  
it is as far  removed as possible from  

the ,christianity of ,paul4 ,at one     
point1  therefore1 ,montefiore is       
entirely correct4 ,the gospel of ,paul  
was  based not upon a mild view of law1 
but upon a strict view2 not upon  a     
belief in the complacency of ,god1 but  
upon the cross of ,christ as  a         
satisfaction of divine justice4 ,neither
 before his conversion nor  after it was
 ,paul a liberal4    ,besides the       
obvious division between the ,judaism of
 ,palestine  and that of the            
,dispersion1 other divisions may be     
detected1  especially within            
,palestinian ,judaism4 ,three principal 
,jewish sects  are distinguished by     
,josephus2 the ,pharisees1 the          
,sadducees1 and  the ,essenes4#ig ,of   
these1 the first two appear also in the 
,new  ,testament4 ,the ,essenes were    
separated from the ordinary life of  the
 people by certain ascetic customs1 by  
the rejection of animal  sacrifice1 and 
by religious practices which may perhaps
 be due to  foreign influence4          

,apparently the ,essenic order did not  
come into  any close contact with the   
early ,church4 ,it is very doubtful1 for
  example1 whether ,lightfoot was       
correct in finding ,essenic influence   
in the errorists combated in ,paul's    
,epistle to the ,colossians4 ,at  any   
rate1 there is not the slightest reason 
to suppose that ,paul was  influenced   
from this source4      #ig ,josephus1   
,antiq4 ,,xviii4 i4 #b-e4    ,the       
,sadducees were a worldly aristocracy1  
in possession of the  lucrative priestly
 offices and reconciled to ,roman rule4 
,their  rejection of the doctrine of    
resurrection is attested not only by    
the ,new ,testament but also by         
,josephus4 ,they were as far removed as 
possible from exerting influence upon   
the youthful ,paul4    ,the ,pharisees  
represented orthodox ,judaism1 with its 
devotion to  the ,law4 ,their           
popularity1 and their general1 though   
not universal1  control of education1   
made them the real leaders of the       

people4  ,certainly the future history  
of the nation was in their hands2  for  
when the ,temple was destroyed the ,law 
alone remained1 and the  ,pharisees were
 the chief interpreters of the ,law4 ,it
 was this party  which claimed the      
allegiance of ,paul4 ,so he testifies   
himself4 ,his  testimony is often       
forgotten1 or at least the implications 
of it  ignored4 ,but it is unequivocal4 
,saul of ,tarsus was not a liberal      
,jew1 but a ,pharisee4    ,the mention  
of the ,pharisees leads naturally to the
 second division  of our sketch of      
pre-,christian ,judaism--namely1 the    
,law4 ,according  to ,baldensperger1 the
 two foci around which ,judaism moved   
were the  ,law and the ,messianic       
hope4#ih ,these two foci will here be   
touched  upon very briefly in order4    
#ih ,baldensperger1 ,die                
,messianisch-apokalyptischen ,hoffnungen
 des    ,judentums1 #cte ,aufl41 #aijc1 
pp4 #hh1 #hi4    ,unquestionably        
post-exilic ,judaism was devoted to the 

,law4 ,the  ,law was found in the ,old  
,testament1 especially in the books of  
,moses4 ,but around the written ,law had
 grown up a great mass of  oral         
interpretations which really amounted to
 elaborate additions4  ,by this         
tradition of the elders the life of the 
devout ,jew was  regulated in its       
minutest particulars4 ,morality thus    
became a  matter of external rules1 and 
religion became a credit-and-debit      
relationship into which a man entered   
with ,god4 ,modern ,jews are  sometimes 
inclined to contradict such assertions1 
but the evidence  found both in         
rabbinical sources and in the ,new      
,testament is too  strong4              
,exaggerations certainly should be      
avoided2 there are  certainly many noble
 utterances to be found among the       
sayings  of the ,jewish teachers2 it is 
not to be supposed that formalism  was  
unrelieved by any manifestations        
whatever of the goodness of  the heart4 
,nevertheless1 the ,jewish writings     

themselves1 along  with flashes of true 
insight1 contain a great mass of        
fruitless  casuistry2 and the ,new      
,testament confirms the impression thus 
produced4 ,in some quarters1 indeed1 it 
is customary to discredit the  testimony
 of ,jesus1 reported in the ,gospels1 as
 being the testimony  of an opponent4   
,but why was ,jesus an opponent8 ,surely
 it was because  of something           
blameworthy in the life of those whom   
,he denounced4  ,in the sphere of moral 
values1 the testimony of ,jesus of      
,nazareth  is worth having2 when ,he    
denounces the formalism and hypocrisy of
  the scribes1 it is very difficult for 
any student of the history of  morals   
not to be impressed4 ,certainly the     
denunciation of ,jesus was  not         
indiscriminate4 ,he loved the rich young
 ruler1 and said to the  lawyer1 ,thou  
art not far from the kingdom of ,god4   
,thus the ,gospels  in their choice of  
the words of ,jesus which they record   
have not  been prejudiced by any hatred 

of the ,jews2 they have faithfuly set   
down various elements in ,jesus'        
judgment of ,his contemporaries4 ,but   
the picture which they give of ,jewish  
legalism cannot be put out  of the      
world2 it seems clear that the religion 
of the ,pharisees at  the time of ,paul 
was burdened with all the defects of a  
religion of  merit as distinguished from
 a religion of grace4    ,the legalism  
of the ,pharisees might indeed seem to  
possess one  advantage as a preparation 
for the gospel of ,paul2 it might seem  
likely to produce the consciousness of  
sin and so the longing for  a ,saviour4 
,if the ,law was so very strict as the  
,pharisees said it  was1 if its commands
 entered so deep into every department  
of life1  if the penalty which it       
imposed upon disobedience was nothing   
less  than loss of the favor of a       
righteous ,god1 would not the man who   
was placed under such a rgime come to   
recognize the imperfection  of his      
obedience to the countless commands and 

so be oppressed by a  sense of guilt8   
,paul said that the ,law was a          
schoolmaster to bring  the ,jews to     
,christ1 and by that he meant that the  
,law produced the  consciousness of sin4
 ,but if the ,law was a schoolmaster1   
was its  stern lesson heeded8 ,was it a 
schoolmaster to bring the ,jews to      
,christ only in its essential character1
 or was it actually being  used in that 
beneficent way by the ,jews of the age  
of ,paul8    ,the answer to these       
questions1 so far as it can be obtained1
 is on  the whole disappointing4 ,the   
,judaism of the ,pauline period does    
not seem to have been characterized by a
 profound sense of sin4  ,and the reason
 is not far to seek4 ,the legalism of   
the ,pharisees1  with its regulation of 
the minute details of life1 was not     
really  making the ,law too hard to     
keep2 it was really making it too easy4 
,jesus said to ,his disciples1 ,except  
your righteousness shall  exceed the    
righteousness of the scribes and        

,pharisees1 ye shall  in no wise enter  
into the kingdom of heaven4 ,the truth  
is1 it is  easier to cleanse the outside
 of the cup than it is to cleanse the   
heart4 ,if the ,pharisees had recognized
 that the ,law demands not  only the    
observance of external rules but also   
and primarily mercy  and justice and    
love for ,god and men1 they would not   
have been so  readily satisfied with the
 measure of their obedience1 and the    
,law  would then have fulfilled its     
great function of being a schoolmaster  
to bring them to ,christ4 ,a low view of
 law leads to legalism in  religion2 a  
high view of law makes a man a seeker   
after grace4    ,here and there1 indeed1
 voices are to be heard in the ,judaism 
of  the ,new ,testament period which    
attest a real sense of sin4 ,the        
,fourth ,book of ,ezra1#ii in           
particular1 struggles seriously with the
  general reign of evil in the lives of 
men1 and can find no solution  of the   
terrible problem4 ,many have been       

created1 but few shall be  saved6 7#d   
,ezra viii4 #c74 ,or who is there that  
has not transgressed  thy covenant8     
7vii4 #df74 ,alas for the evil heart    
7vii4 #dh76 ,in  a very interesting     
manner #d ,ezra connects the miserable  
condition  of humanity with the fall of 
,adam2 the fall was not ,adam's alone   
but his descendants' 7vii4 #aah74 ,at   
this point1 it is interesting  to       
compare #b ,baruch1#ajj which occupies a
 somewhat different  position2 each of  
us1 declares #b ,baruch1 has been the   
,adam of  his own soul4 ,and in general1
 #b ,baruch takes a less pessimistic    
view of human evil1 and 7according to   
,charles' estimate1 which may  be       
correct7 is more self-complacent about  
the ,law4 ,but the profound  sense of   
guilt in #d ,ezra might conceivably be a
 step on the way to  saving faith in    
,christ4 ,o ,lord above us1 if thou     
wouldst 444 give  unto us the seed of a 
new heart6 7#d ,ezra viii4 #f74 ,this   
prayer was  gloriously answered in the  

gospel of ,paul4#aja      #ii ,see ,box1
 in ,charles1 ,apocrypha and            
,pseudepigrapha of the    ,old          
,testament1 #aiac1 ii1 pp4 #edb-fbd2    
,schrer1 ,geschichte des    jdischen    
,volkes1 #cte und #dte ,aufl41 iii1     
#aiji1 pp4 #cae-cce    7,english        
,translation1 ,a ,history of the ,jewish
 ,people1 ,division    ,,ii1 vol4 iii1  
#ahhf1 pp4 #ic-ajd74 ,the work of       
,charles has been used    freely1       
without special acknowledgment1 for the 
citations from the    ,jewish           
apocalypses4      #ajj ,see ,charles1   
op4 cit41 ii1 pp4 #dgj-ebf2 ,schrer1 op4
 cit41    iii1 pp4 #cje-cae 7,english   
,translation1 ,division ,,ii1 vol4 iii1 
pp4    #hc-ic74      #aja ,compare ,box1
 in ,charles1 op4 cit41 p4 #eic4 ,see   
also ,emmet1    loc4 cit4    ,it must be
 remembered1 however1 that #d ,ezra was 
completed long after  the ,pauline      
period2 its attitude to the problem of  
evil certainly  cannot be attributed    
with any confidence to ,saul of ,tarsus1

  the pupil of ,gamaliel4 ,it is        
significant that when1 after the        
conversion1 ,paul seeks testimonies to  
the universal sinfulness of  man1 he    
looks not to contemporary ,judaism1 but 
to the ,old ,testament4  ,at this point1
 as elsewhere1 ,paulinism is based not  
upon later  developments but upon the   
religion of the ,prophets and the       
,psalms4  ,on the whole1 therefore1     
especially in the light of what was said
  above1 it cannot be supposed that     
,saul the ,pharisee held a spiritual    
view of law1 or was possessed of a true 
conviction of sin4 ,paul was  convicted 
of his sin only when the ,lord ,jesus   
said to him1 ,i am  ,jesus whom thou    
persecutest4    ,the other focus about  
which pre-,christian ,judaism1 according
 to  ,baldensperger1 revolved was the   
,messianic hope4 ,this hope had its     
roots in the ,old ,testament4 ,a        
complete introduction to the subject    
would of course deal first with the ,old
 ,testament background4 ,here1  however1

 the background will have to be         
dismissed with a word4    ,according to 
the ordinary critical view1 the doctrine
 of an  individual ,messiah1 and        
especially that of a transcendent       
,messiah1  arose late in the history of 
,israel4 ,at first1 it is maintained1   
there was the expectation of a blessed  
line of ,davidic kings2 then  the       
expectation of a line of kings gave way 
in some quarters to  the expectation of 
an individual king2 then the expectation
 of an  earthly king gave way in some   
quarters to the expectation of a        
heavenly being like the ,son of ,man who
 is described in #a ,enoch4  ,this      
theory1 however1 has been called in     
question in recent years1  for example  
by ,gressmann4#ajb ,according to        
,gressmann1 the doctrine  of an         
individual transcendent ,saviour is of  
hoar antiquity1 and  antedates by far   
the expectation of a blessed line of    
,davidic  kings and that of an          
individual earthy king4 ,gressmann is   

not1 of  course1 returning to the       
traditional view of the ,old ,testament4
 ,on  the contrary1 he believes that the
 ancient doctrine of a heavenly         
,saviour is of extra-,israelitish origin
 and represents a widespread  myth4 ,but
 in the details of exegesis1 the        
radicalism of ,gressmann1  as is also   
the case with many forms of radicalism  
in connection with  the ,new ,testament1
 involves a curious return to the       
traditional  view4 ,many passages of the
 ,old ,testament1 formerly removed from 
the  list of ,messianic passages by the 
dominant school of exegesis1 or  else   
regarded as late interpolations1 are    
restored by ,gressmann to  their        
original significance4 ,thus the        
suffering servant of ,jehovah  of ,is4  
liii 7a passage which the dominant      
school of exegesis has  interpreted in a
 collective sense1 as referring to the  
nation of  ,israel or to the righteous  
part of the nation7 is regarded by      
,gressmann as being an individual       

7mythical7 figure to whose death  and   
resurrection is attributed saving       
significance4      #ajb ,der ,ursprung  
der israelitisch-jdischen ,eschatologie1
 #aije4    ,the supernaturalistic view  
of the ,old ,testament#ajc agrees with  
,gressmann in his individualistic       
interpretation of such passages  as ,is4
 liii1 but differs from him in that it  
attributes objective  validity to the   
representation thus obtained4 ,according
 to the  supernaturalistic view1 ,israel
 was from the beginning the people of   
the ,promise4 ,the ,promise at first was
 not fully defined in the minds  of all 
the people4 ,but even at the beginning  
there were glorious  revelations1 and   
the revelations became plainer and      
plainer as  time went on4 ,the various  
elements in the ,promise were not indeed
  kept carefully distinct1 and their    
logical connections were not  revealed4 
,but even long before the ,exile there  
was not only a  promise of blessing to  
,david's line1 with occasional mention  

of  an individual king1 but also a      
promise of a ,redeemer and ,king who    
should far exceed the limits of         
humanity4 ,thus ,god had sustained ,his 
people through the centuries with a     
blessed hope1 which was finally         
fulfilled1 in all its aspects1 by the   
,lord ,jesus ,christ4      #ajc ,see    
,beecher1 ,the ,prophets and the        
,promise1 #aije4    ,discussion of these
 various views would exceed the limits  
of the  present investigation4 ,all that
 can here be done is to present  briefly
 the ,messianic expectations of the     
later period1 in which  ,paul lived4    
,but were those expectations widely     
prevalent8 ,was the doctrine of  a      
coming ,messiah firmly established among
 the ,jews of the time of  ,paul8 ,the  
answer to these questions might seem to 
be perfectly  plain4 ,the common        
impression is that the ,judaism of the  
first  century was devoted to nothing if
 not to the hope of a king who was  to  
deliver ,god's people from the          

oppression of her enemies4 ,this        
impression is derived from the ,new     
,testament4 ,somewhat different is  the 
impression which might be derived from  
the ,jewish sources if  they were taken 
alone4 ,the expectation of a ,messiah   
hardly appears  at all in the           
,apocrypha1 and even in the             
,pseudepigrapha it appears  by no means 
in all of the books4 ,even when the     
thought of the future  age is most      
prominent1 that age does not by any     
means appear in  inevitable connection  
with a personal ,messiah4 ,on the       
contrary1 ,god  ,himself1 not ,his      
instrument the ,messiah1 is often       
represented as  ushering in the new era 
when ,israel should be blessed4         
,despite this difference between the    
,new ,testament and the ,jewish         
literature1 it is generally recognized  
that the testimony of the  ,new         
,testament must be essentially correct4 
,the picture which is  given in the     
,gospels of the intensity of the        

,messianic hope among  the ,jews must be
 founded upon fact even if ,jesus       
,himself did not  claim to be the       
,messiah4 ,indeed1 it is just in that   
latter case  that the testimony in some 
respects would become strongest of all4 
,for if ,jesus did not claim to be the  
,messiah1 the attribution of            
,messiahship to ,him by ,his disciples  
could be explained only by the          
intensity of their own ,messianic       
expectations4 ,as a matter of fact1     
however1 ,jesus did claim to be the     
,messiah2 the elimination of ,his       
,messianic consciousness has not won the
 assent of any large body  of           
historians4 ,he did claim to be the     
,messiah1 and ,he died because  the     
,jews regarded ,him as a false claimant4
 ,but ,his opponents1 no  less than ,his
 disciples1 were expecting a ,king of   
the ,jews4 ,the  ,new ,testament        
throughout1 no matter what view may be  
held as to the  historicity of the      
individual narratives1 is quite         

inexplicable  unless the ,jews both in  
,palestine and in the ,dispersion had a 
doctrine of the ,christ4    ,this ,new  
,testament representation is confirmed  
here and there by  other writers4 ,even 
,philo1#ajd as ,brckner remarks1 pays   
his  tribute1 though in an isolated     
passage1 to the common ,messianic       
doctrine4#aje ,josephus1#ajf also1      
despite his effort to avoid  offending  
his ,roman readers1 is obliged to       
mention the ,messianic  hope as one     
cause of the great war1 and can only    
make the reference  harmless by finding 
the ,messiah in the ,emperor            
,vespasian6#ajg ,on  the whole1 the fact
 may be regarded as certain that in the 
first  century after ,christ the        
expectation of the ,messiah was firmly  
established among the ,jews4 ,the       
silence of great sections of the        
,apocrypha may then be explained partly 
by the date of some of the  books4 ,it  
may well be that there was a period1    
especially during the  ,maccabean       

uprising1 when because of the better    
present condition of  the nation the    
,messianic hope was less in the         
forefront of interest1  and that        
afterwards1 under the humiliation of    
,roman rule1 the  thoughts of the people
 turned anew to the expected ,deliverer4
 ,but  however that may be1 it is       
altogether probable that the expectation
  of a ,messiah was everywhere cherished
 in the ,judaism of the time of  ,paul4 
#ajd ,de praem et poen4 #af 7ed4 ,cohn1 
#aijb1 iv1 p4 #ceg74      #aje ,brckner1
 ,die ,entstehung der paulinischen      
,christologie1    #aijc1 pp4 #ajb;f4    
#ajf ,bell4 ,jud4 ,,vi4 v4 #d4      #ajg
 ,schrer1 op4 cit41 ii1 #aijg1 p4 #fjd  
7,english ,translation1    ,division    
,,ii1 vol4 ii1 #ahhe1 p4 #adi74    ,if  
then the hope of a ,messiah was         
prevalent in the ,judaism of the  first 
century1 what was the nature of that    
hope8 ,two forms of  ,messianic         
expectation have ordinarily been        
distinguished4 ,in the  first place1 it 

is said1 there was an expectation of an 
earthly king  of ,david's line1 and in  
the second place1 there was the notion  
of a  heavenly being already existing in
 heaven4 ,the former of these two  lines
 of expectation is usually thought to   
represent the popular  view1 held by the
 masses of the people2 and the latter is
 regarded  as an esoteric doctrine held 
by a limited circle from which the      
apocalypses have sprung4    ,at this    
point1 ,brckner is somewhat in          
opposition to the ordinary  opinion2 he 
denies altogether the presence in       
first-century ,judaism  of any          
distinctive doctrine of a purely human  
,messiah4#ajh ,the  ,messiah1 he says1  
appears in all the sources distinctly as
 a  supernatural figure4 ,even in the   
,psalms of ,solomon1 he insists1  where 
the ,messiah is represented as a king   
reigning upon earth1 ,he  is            
nevertheless no ordinary king1 for ,he  
destroys ,his enemies not by  the       
weapons of war but by the breath of ,his

 mouth4 ,in the ,gospels1  moreover1    
although the people are represented as  
looking for a king  who should break the
 ,roman rule1 yet they demand of this   
king works  of superhuman power4        
#ajh ,brckner1 op4 cit41 pp4 #ajd-aab4  
,undoubtedly there is a measure of truth
 in this contention of  ,brckner4 ,it   
may perhaps be admitted that the        
,messiah of ,jewish  expectation was    
always something more than an ordinary  
king2 it  may perhaps be admitted that  
,he was endowed with supernatural       
attributes4 ,nevertheless1 the view of  
,brckner is exaggerated4 ,there  is     
still to be maintained the distinction  
between the heavenly  being of #a ,enoch
 and the ,davidic king4 ,the latter     
might perhaps be  regarded as possessed 
of miraculous powers1 but still ,he was 
in  the essentials of ,his person an    
earthly monarch4 ,he was to be born     
like other men2 ,he was to rule over an 
earthly kingdom2 ,he was to  conquer    
earthly armies2 presumably ,he was to   

die4 ,it is significant  that ,john the 
,baptist1 despite the fact that he had  
as yet wrought  no miracles1 was        
apparently thought by some to be the    
,messiah 7,lk4  iii4 #ae2 ,john i4      
#ai-bg74 ,even if this representation of
 the ,gospels  of ,luke and of ,john    
should be regarded as quite             
unhistorical1 still  it does show that  
the writers of these two ,gospels1      
neither of  whom was by any means       
ignorant of ,jewish conditions1 regard  
it as  no incongruity that some should  
have supposed such a man as ,john  to be
 the ,messiah4 ,the ,messiah1 therefore1
 could not have been  regarded always as
 being like the heavenly ,son of ,man of
 #a ,enoch4  ,but it is unnecessary to  
appeal to details4 ,the whole ,new      
,testament1  whatever view may be taken 
of the historicity of its narratives in 
detail1 attests the prevalence in the   
first century of a ,messianic           
expectation according to which the      
,messiah was to be an earthly king  of  

,david's line4    ,this view of         
,messiahship becomes explicit in ,justin
 ,martyr's  ,dialogue with ,trypho1     
which was written at about the middle of
  the second century4 ,in this book1 the
 ,jewish opponent of ,justin  represents
 the ,messiah as a mere man4#aji ,no    
doubt this evidence  cannot be used     
directly for the earlier period in which
 ,paul  lived4 ,there does seem to have 
been a reaction in later ,jewish        
expectations against that transcendent  
view of ,messiahship which had  been    
adopted by the ,christian ,church4 ,thus
 the apocalypses passed  out of use     
among the ,jews1 and1 in some cases at  
least1 have been  preserved only by the 
,church1 and only because of their      
congruity  with ,christian views4 ,it is
 possible1 therefore1 that when ,trypho 
in the middle of the second century     
represents the ,messiah as a  mere man1 
he is attesting a development in the    
,jewish doctrine  which was subsequent  
to the time of ,paul4 ,but even in that 

case his  testimony is not altogether   
without value4 ,even if ,trypho's       
doctrine  of a merely human ,messiah be 
a later development1 it was probably    
not without some roots in the past4 ,if 
the ,jews of the first century          
possessed both the doctrine of an       
earthly king and that of a  heavenly    
,son of ,man1 it is possible to see how 
the latter doctrine  might have been    
removed and the former left in sole     
possession of  the field2 but if in the 
first century the transcendent doctrine 
alone prevailed1 it is unlikely that a  
totally different view could  have been 
produced so quickly to take its         
place4#aaj      #aji  4      #aaj       
,indeed ,brckner himself 7op4 cit41 p4  
#aaj7 admits that    there were two     
lines of thought about the ,messiah in  
pre-,christian    ,judaism4 ,but he     
denies that the two were separated1 and 
insists that    the transcendent        
conception had transformed the          
conception of an    earthly king4       

,thus it must be insisted against       
,brckner that in the first  century the 
transcendent conception of ,messiahship 
attested by the  apocalypses was not the
 only conception that prevailed4        
,despite its  dominance in the          
apocalypses1 it was probably not the    
doctrine of  the masses of the people4  
,probably the ordinary view of the      
matter  is essentially correct2 probably
 the ,jews of the first century were    
eagerly awaiting an earthly king of     
,david's line who should deliver  them  
from ,roman rule4    ,if1 however1 the  
transcendent conception of ,messiahship 
which  is found in the apocalypses was  
not the only conception held by         
pre-,christian ,judaism1 it is none the 
less of special interest1 and  will     
repay examination4 ,it is found most    
fully set forth in the  ,similitudes of 
#a ,enoch1#aaa but appears also in #d   
,ezra and in #b  ,baruch4      #aaa ,all
 parts of #a ,enoch are now usually     
thought to be of    pre-,christian      

origin4 ,the ,similitudes 7chaps4       
xxxvii-lxxi7 are    usually dated in the
 first century before ,christ4 ,see     
,charles1    op4 cit41 ii1 pp4 #afc-bha2
 ,schrer1 op4 cit41 iii1 pp4 #bfh-bij   
7,english ,translation1 ,division ,,ii1 
vol4 iii1 pp4 #ed-gc74    ,in the       
,similitudes1 the heavenly being1 who is
 to appear at the end  of the age and be
 the instrument of ,god in judgment1 is 
usually  called the ,elect ,one1 ,mine  
,elect ,one1 the ,son of ,man1 or that  
,son  of ,man4 ,he is also called the   
,righteous ,one1 and twice he is called 
,messiah or ,anointed ,one 7xlviii4 #aj2
 lii4 #d74 ,this latter title  would    
seem to connect him with the expected   
king of ,david's line1  who was the     
,anointed ,one or the ,messiah4 ,lake   
and ,jackson1 however1  would deny all  
connection4 ,the heavenly ,son of ,man1 
they maintain1  was never in            
pre-,christian ,judaism identified with 
the expected  king of ,david's          
line--that is1 with the ,messiah in the 

technical  sense--so that it is a       
mistake to speak of ,messianic passages 
in  the ,book of ,enoch4#aab ,but after 
all1 the heavenly figure of #a  ,enoch  
is represented as fulfilling much the   
same functions as those  which are      
attributed in the ,psalms of ,solomon1  
for example1 to the  ,messiah4 ,it would
 be difficult to conceive of the same   
writer as  expecting two deliverers--one
 the ,messiah of the ,psalms of         
,solomon1  and the other the ,son of    
,man of #a ,enoch4 ,on the whole1       
therefore1  it is correct1 despite the  
protest of ,lake and ,jackson1 to speak 
of  the passages in #a ,enoch as        
,messianic1 and of the ,son of ,man as  
the  ,messiah4 ,in #d ,ezra xii4 #cb1   
moreover1 the transcendent being1 who   
is set forth under the figure of the    
lion1 is distinctly identified  with the
 ,messiah who shall spring from the seed
 of ,david4 ,of  course1 the late date  
of #d ,ezra may be insisted upon1 and it
 may be  maintained that the ,davidic   

descent of the ,messiah in #d ,ezra is a
  mere traditional detail1 without      
organic connection with the rest  of the
 picture4 ,but it is significant that   
the writer did feel it  necessary to    
retain the detail4 ,his doing so proves 
at least that  the heavenly being of the
 apocalypses was not always thought of  
as  distinct from the promised king of  
,david's line4 ,all that can be  granted
 to ,lake and ,jackson is that the      
future ,deliverer was thought  of in    
pre-,christian ,judaism in widely       
diverse ways1 and that there  was often 
no effort to bring the different        
representations into  harmony4 ,but it  
is correct to speak of all the          
representations as  ,messianic4 ,for the
 coming ,deliverer in all cases 7despite
 the  variety of the expectations7 was  
intended to satisfy at least the  same  
religious needs4      #aab ,lake and    
,jackson1 ,the ,beginnings of           
,christianity1 ,part ,i1    vol4 i1     
#aibj1 pp4 #cgc;f4    ,the title ,son of

 ,man1 which is used frequently in the  
,similitudes1  has given rise to a great
 deal of discussion1 especially because 
of  its employment in the ,gospels as a 
self-designation of ,jesus4 ,it  has    
been maintained by some scholars that   
,son of ,man never could  have been a   
,messianic title1 since the phrase in   
,aramaic idiom  means simply man4 ,thus 
the ,greek phrase1 the ,son of ,man1 in 
the  ,gospels would merely be an        
over-literal translation of an ,aramaic 
phrase which meant simply the man1 and  
the use of ,son of ,man as  a title     
would not extend back of the time when  
the tradition about  the words of ,jesus
 passed over into ,greek4 ,but in recent
 years this  extreme position has for   
the most part been abandoned4 ,in the   
first  place1 it is by no means clear   
that the ,aramaic phrase from which  the
 phrase the ,son of ,man in the ,gospels
 is derived was simply the  ordinary    
phrase meaning simply the man4 ,opposed 
to this view is  to be put1 for example1

 the weighty opinion of ,dalman4#aac ,in
 the  second place1 it has been shown   
that the linguistic question is not  so 
important as was formerly supposed4 ,for
 even if the son of man  in ,aramaic    
meant simply the man1 it might still be 
a title4 ,the  commonest noun may       
sometimes become a title1 and a title of
 highly  specialized significance4 ,for 
example1 the word day is a very  common 
word1 but ,the ,day in certain          
connections1 like the ,german1  ,der    
,tag1 altogether without the help of any
 adjectives1 comes  to designate one    
particular day4 ,so the ,man or that    
,man could  become a very lofty title1  
especially if it refers to some definite
  scene in which ,he who is the ,man par
 excellence is described4      #aac     
,dalman1 ,die ,worte ,jesu1 i1 #ahih1   
pp4 #aia-aig 7,english    ,translation1 
,the ,words of ,jesus1 i1 #aijb1 pp4    
#bcd-bda72 ,bousset1    ,kyrios         
,christos1 #aiac1 pp4 #ac1 #ad4    ,in  
the ,similitudes1 such is actually the  

case2 the phrase ,son of  ,man1 whatever
 be its exact meaning1 plainly refers to
 the one like  unto a son of man who in 
,daniel vii4 #ac appears in the presence
  of the ,ancient of ,days4 ,this       
reference is made perfectly plain  at   
the first mention of the ,son of ,man   
7#a ,enoch xlvi4 #a1 #b71 where  the    
same scene is evidently described as the
 scene of ,dan4 vii4 #ac4  ,the ,son of 
,man is not introduced abruptly1 but is 
first described  as a being whose       
countenance had the appearance of a man1
 and is  then referred to in the        
,similitudes not only as the ,son of    
,man1  but also as that ,son of ,man4   
,charles and others suppose1 indeed1    
that the ,ethiopic word translated that 
is merely a somewhat false              
representation1 in the ,ethiopic        
translation1 of the ,greek definite     
article1 so that the ,greek form of the 
book from which the extant  ,ethiopic   
was taken had everywhere the ,son of    
,man1 and nowhere  that ,son of ,man4   

,the question is perhaps not of very    
great  importance4 ,in any case1 the    
phrase son of man derives its special   
significance from the reference to the  
scene of ,dan4 vii4 #ac4 ,not  any      
ordinary man or son of man is meant1 but
 the mysterious  figure who came with   
the clouds of heaven and was brought    
near to  the ,ancient of ,days4    ,the 
,son of ,man1 or the ,elect ,one1 in the
 ,similitudes1 appears  clothed with the
 loftiest attributes4 ,he existed before
 the creation  of the world 7xlviii4 #c1
 #f74 ,when he finally appears1 it is to
 sit  in glory upon the throne of ,god  
7li4 #c1 etc471 and judge not only  the 
inhabitants of earth but also the fallen
 angels 7lv4 #d74 ,for the  purposes of 
judgment he is endued with righteousness
 and wisdom4 ,he  is concerned1         
moreover1 not only with the judgment but
 also with  the execution of the        
judgment2 he causes the sinners to pass 
away  and be destroyed from off the face
 of the earth 7lxix4 #bg74 ,for  the    

righteous1 on the other hand1 the       
judgment results in blessing  and in    
communion with the ,son of ,man4 ,and   
the righteous and elect  shall be saved 
in that day1 and they shall never       
thenceforward see  the face of the      
sinners and the unrighteous4 ,and the   
,lord of ,spirits  will abide over them1
 and with that ,son of ,man shall they  
eat and  lie down and rise up for ever  
and ever 7lxii4 #ac1 #ad74    ,the      
entire representation in the            
,similitudes is supernatural2 the  ,son 
of ,man is a heavenly figure who appears
 suddenly in the full  blaze of his     
glory4 ,yet the connection with earth is
 not altogether  broken off4 ,it is upon
 a glorified earth that the righteous   
are  to dwell4 ,indeed1 despite the     
cosmic extent of the drama1 the         
prerogatives of ,israel are preserved2  
the ,gentile rulers are no  doubt       
referred to in the ,kings and the       
,mighty who are to suffer  punishment   
because of their former oppression of   

the elect4 ,on the  other hand1 mere    
connection with ,israel is not the only 
ground for a  man's acceptance by the   
,son of ,man2 the judgment will be based
 upon  a real understanding of the      
secrets of individual lives4    ,in #d  
,ezra vii4 #bf-ca1 the rule of the      
,messiah is represented as  distinctly  
temporary4 ,the ,messiah will rejoice   
the living for four  hundred years2     
then1 together with all human beings1 he
 will die2  then after the world has    
returned to primeval silence for seven  
days1 the new age1 with the final       
resurrection1 will be ushered  in4 ,it  
may be doubted whether this             
representation harmonizes with  what is 
said elsewhere in #d ,ezra about the    
,messiah1 indeed whether  even in this  
passage the representation is thoroughly
 consistent4  ,box1 for example1 thinks 
that there are contradictions here1     
which  are to be explained by the       
composite nature of the book and by the 
work of a redactor4 ,but at any rate the

 result1 in the completed  book1 is     
clear4 ,the ,messiah is to die1 like all
 the men who are upon  the earth1 and is
 not connected with the new age4 ,this  
death of  the ,messiah is as far as     
possible from possessing any            
significance  for the salvation of men4 
,certainly it is not brought into any   
connection with the problem of sin1     
which1 as has been observed  above1     
engages the special attention of the    
writer of #d ,ezra4 ,it  is important to
 observe how the ,jewish faith knew of a
 ,saviour for  external ills1 but not   
for sin and condemnation2 and how the   
,christ  is able only to create a brief 
earthly joy1 which passes away with  the
 destruction of the world4#aad      #aad
 ,volz1 ,jdische ,eschatologie von      
,daniel bis ,akiba1 #aijc1 pp4          
#bjb;f4    ,in the ,testaments of the   
,twelve ,patriarchs1#aae although       
,brckner  is no doubt right in saying   
that the ,messiah here as well as in #a 
,enoch is a supernatural figure1 the    

connection of the ,messiah with  the    
tribe of ,levi introduces the reader    
into a somewhat different  circle of    
ideas4 ,the difference becomes more     
marked in the ,psalms  of ,solomon1#aaf 
where the ,messiah is a king of ,david's
 line4 ,it is  no doubt true that even  
here the ,messiah is no ordinary human  
being2  he destroys his enemies1 not by 
the weapons of warfare and not by  the  
help of ,israelitish armies1 but by the 
breath of his mouth4 ,yet  the local1   
earthly character of the ,messiah's     
reign--what may even  be called1        
perhaps1 its political character--is    
more clearly marked  than in the        
apocalypses4 ,also there is stronger    
emphasis upon the  ethical qualities of 
the ,messianic king2 the righteousness  
of his  people is celebrated in lofty   
terms1 which1 however1 do not exclude  a
 strong element of ,jewish and          
,pharisaic particularism4      #aae ,see
 ,charles1 op4 cit41 ii1 pp4 #bhb-cfg2  
,schrer1 op4 cit41    iii1 pp4 #cci-cef 

7,english ,translation1 ,division ,,ii1 
vol4 iii1 pp4    #aad-abd74      #aaf   
,see ,gray1 in ,charles1 op4 cit41 ii1  
pp4 #fbe-feb2 ,schrer1    op4 cit41 iii1
 pp4 #bje-bab 7,english ,translation1   
,division ,,ii1 vol4    iii1 pp4        
#ag-bc74    ,no complete exposition of  
the ,jewish belief about the ,messiah   
has  here been attempted4 ,but enough   
has perhaps been said to indicate  at   
least some features of the ,messianic   
expectation in the period  just         
preceding the time of ,paul4 ,evidently1
 in certain circles  at least1 the      
,messianic hope was transcendent1       
individualistic1  and universalistic4   
,the scene of ,messiah's kingdom was not
 always  thought of merely as the       
earthly ,jerusalem2 at least the drama  
by which that kingdom is ushered in was 
thought of as taking  place either in   
heaven or upon an earth which has been  
totally  transformed4 ,with this        
transcendent representation went        
naturally  a tendency towards           

individualism4 ,not merely nations were 
to be  judged1 but also the secrets of  
the individual life2 and individuals    
were to have a part in the final        
blessing or the final woe4 ,of  course1 
for those who should die before the end 
of the age1 this  participation in the  
final blessedness or the final woe would
 be  possible only by a resurrection4   
,and the doctrine of resurrection1      
especially for the righteous1 is in the 
apocalypses clearly  marked4 ,in #b     
,baruch1 indeed1 there is an interesting
 discussion  of the relation between the
 resurrection state and the present     
condition of man2 the righteous will    
first rise in their old  bodies1 but    
afterwards will be transformed 7#b      
,baruch xlix-li74  ,finally1 the        
apocalypses exhibit a tendency toward   
universalism4  ,the coming of the       
,messianic kingdom is regarded as an    
event of  cosmic significance4 ,the     
,gentiles are even sometimes said to    
share  in the blessing4 ,but they are to

 share in the blessing only by          
subordination to the people of ,god4    
,despite the importance of the later    
period1 it is interesting to  observe   
that all the essential features of later
 ,jewish eschatology  have their roots  
in the canonical books of the ,old      
,testament4 ,in  the first place1 the   
transcendence of the later              
representation has  an ,old ,testament  
basis4 ,in ,isaiah ix and xi the        
,messiah appears  clearly as a          
supernatural figure1 and in ,isaiah lxv4
 #ag there is a  prophecy of new heavens
 and a new earth4 ,the heavenly ,son of 
,man  is derived from ,dan4 vii4 #ac1   
and the individualistic interpretation  
of that passage1 which makes the ,son of
 ,man1 despite verse #ah1  something    
more than a mere collective symbol for  
the people of  ,israel1 is to-day in    
certain quarters coming to its rights4  
,not  only in the ,psalms of ,solomon1  
but also in the apocalypses1 the ,old   
,testament language is used again and   

again to describe the heavenly          
,messiah4 ,there is1 in the second      
place1 an ,old ,testament basis for  the
 individualism of the later             
representation4 ,the doctrine of        
resurrection1 with its consequences for 
an individualistic hope1  appears in    
,daniel4 ,and1 finally1 the universalism
 of the apocalypses  does not transcend 
that of the great ,old ,testament       
prophets4 ,in the  prophets also1 the   
nations are to come under the judgment  
of ,god and  are to share in some sort  
in the blessings of ,israel4    ,if1    
therefore1 the apostle ,paul before his 
conversion believed in a  heavenly      
,messiah1 supernatural in origin and in 
function1 he was not  really unfaithful 
to the ,old ,testament4    ,but was his 
pre-,christian notion of the ,messiah   
really the source  of the ,christology  
of the ,epistles8 ,such is the          
contention of ,wrede  and ,brckner4     
,wrede and ,brckner believe that the    
lofty ,christology  of ,paul1           

inexplicable if it was derived from the 
man ,jesus1 may be  accounted for if it 
was merely the pre-,christian conception
 of the  ,messiah brought into loose    
connection with the prophet of          
,nazareth4  ,this hypothesis must now be
 examined4    ,at the beginning of the  
investigation1 it may be questioned     
whether  ,paul before his conversion    
held the apocalyptic view of the        
,messiah4  ,it might1 indeed1 even be   
questioned whether he was particularly  
interested in the ,messianic hope at    
all4 ,if ,baldensperger is correct  in  
saying that the ,messianic dogma was in 
some sort a substitute  for the ,law1   
and the ,law a substitute for the       
,messianic dogma1  so that finally      
rabbinical interest in the ,law tended  
to dampen  interest in the ,messiah1#aag
 then the pre-,christian life of ,paul  
was presumably not dominated by         
,messianic expectations4 ,for ,paul     
himself1 as ,baldensperger observes1#aah
 does not1 in speaking of  his          

pre-,christian life1 reckon himself with
 the ,messianists4 ,he  reckons himself1
 rather1 with those who were zealous for
 the ,law4  ,such considerations are    
interesting4 ,but their importance      
should  not be exaggerated4 ,it must be 
remembered that according to the        
testimony of the whole ,new ,testament  
the doctrine of the ,messiah was  firmly
 established in the ,judaism of ,paul's 
day4 ,it is hardly likely  that ,paul   
the ,pharisee dissented from the        
orthodox belief4 ,in all  probability1  
therefore1 ,paul before his conversion  
did hold some  doctrine of the ,messiah4
      #aag ,baldensperger1 ,die         
,messianisch-apocalyptischen ,hoffnungen
 des    ,judentums1 #cte ,aufl41 #aijc1 
pp4 #hh1 #bjg;f41 #baf;f4      #aah     
,baldensperger1 op4 cit41 pp4 #baf;f4   
,it is not so certain1 however1 that the
 pre-conversion doctrine  of ,paul      
presented a transcendent ,messiah like  
the heavenly ,son of  ,man of the       
apocalypses4 ,certainly there is in the 

,pauline ,epistles  no evidence whatever
 of literary dependence upon the        
apocalyptic  descriptions of the        
,messiah4 ,the characteristic titles of 
the  ,messiah which appear in the       
,similitudes of ,enoch1 for example1 are
  conspicuously absent from ,paul4 ,paul
 never uses the title ,son of  ,man or  
,elect ,one or ,righteous ,one in       
speaking of ,christ4 ,and  in the       
apocalypses1 on the other hand1 the     
,pauline terminology is  almost equally 
unknown4 ,the apocalypses1 at least #a  
,enoch1 use the  title ,messiah only    
very seldom1 and the characteristic     
,pauline  title1 ,lord1 never at all4   
,it is evident1 therefore1 that the     
,pauline ,christology was not derived   
from the particular apocalypses  that   
are still extant4 ,all that can possibly
 be maintained is that  it was derived  
from apocalypses which have been lost1  
or from an  apocalyptic oral tradition4 
,but dependence upon lost sources1      
direct  comparison not being possible1  

is always very difficult to establish4  
,thus the terminology of the ,epistles  
and of the apocalypses is  rather       
unfavorable to the view which attributes
 to the youthful  ,paul the apocalyptic 
doctrine of the ,messiah4 ,no literary  
relation  can be established between the
 ,epistles and the extant apocalypses4  
,but will general considerations serve  
to supply the lack of direct  evidence  
of dependence8 ,on the whole1 the       
reverse is the case4  ,general          
considerations as to the pre-,christian 
opinions of ,paul  point rather to a    
less transcendent and more political    
conception  than the conception which is
 found in the apocalypses4 ,no doubt the
  ,messiah whom ,paul was expecting     
possessed supernatural attributes2  it  
seems to have been generally expected in
 ,new ,testament times that  the        
,messiah would work miracles4 ,but the  
supernatural attributes of  the ,messiah
 would not necessarily involve a        
conception like that  which is presented

 in the ,similitudes of ,enoch4         
,possibly it is  rather to the ,psalms  
of ,solomon that the historian should   
turn4 ,the  ,psalms of ,solomon were a  
typical product of ,pharisaism in its   
nobler  aspects4 ,their conception of   
the ,messiah1 therefore1 may well have  
been that of the pupil of ,gamaliel4    
,and the ,messiah of the ,psalms  of    
,solomon1 though possessed of           
supernatural power and wisdom1 is       
thought of primarily as a king of       
,david's line1 and there is no  thought 
of his prexistence4 ,he is very         
different from the ,son of  ,man of #a  
,enoch4    ,it is1 therefore1 not       
perfectly clear that ,paul before the   
conversion believed in a heavenly1      
prexistent ,messiah like the  ,messiah  
of the apocalypses4 ,there is some      
reason for supposing that  the          
apocalyptic ,messiah was the ,messiah1  
not of the masses of the  people and not
 of the orthodox teachers1 but of a     
somewhat limited  circle4 ,did ,paul    

belong to that limited circle8 ,the     
question cannot  be answered with any   
certainty4    ,the importance of such   
queries must not1 indeed1 be            
exaggerated4 ,it  is not being          
maintained here that ,paul before his   
conversion did not  believe in the      
,messiah of the apocalypses2 all that is
 maintained  is that it is not certain  
that he did4 ,possibly the diffusion of 
apocalyptic ideas in pre-,christian     
,judaism was much wider than is         
sometimes supposed2 possibly the        
youthful ,paul did come under the       
influence of such ideas4 ,but ,wrede and
 ,brckner are going too far  if they    
assert that ,paul must necessarily have 
come under such  influences4 ,the truth 
is that the pre-,christian life of ,paul
 is  shrouded in the profoundest        
obscurity4 ,almost the only definite    
piece of information is what ,paul      
himself tells us--that he was  zealous  
for the ,law4 ,he says nothing about his
 conception of the  ,messiah4 ,the      

utmost caution is therefore in place4   
,brckner is going  much further than the
 sources will warrant when he makes     
,paul before  his conversion a devotee  
of the apocalyptic ,messiah1 and bases  
upon  this hypothesis an elaborate      
theory as to the genesis of the ,pauline
  ,christology4    ,but even if ,paul   
before his conversion was a devotee of  
the  apocalyptic ,messiah1 the genesis  
of the ,pauline ,christology has not    
yet been explained4 ,for the apocalyptic
 ,messiah is different in  important    
respects from the ,christ of the        
,epistles4    ,in the first place1 there
 is in the apocalypses no doctrine of   
an activity of the ,messiah in creation1
 like that which appears  in #a ,cor4   
viii4 #f2 ,col4 i4 #af4 ,the ,messiah of
 the apocalypses is  prexistent1 but ,he
 is not thought of as being associated  
with ,god  in the creation of the world4
 ,this difference may seem to be only  a
 difference in detail2 but it is a      
difference in detail which  concerns    

just that part of the ,pauline          
,christology which would seem  to be    
most similar to the apocalyptic         
doctrine4 ,it is the ,pauline           
conception of the prexistent ,christ1 as
 distinguished from the  incarnate or   
the risen ,christ1 which ,wrede and     
,brckner find it  easiest to connect    
with the apocalypses4 ,but even in the  
prexistent  period the ,christ of ,paul 
is different from the apocalyptic       
,messiah1  because the ,christ of ,paul1
 unlike the apocalyptic ,messiah1 has an
  active part in the creation of the    
world4    ,in the second place1 there is
 in the apocalypses no trace of the     
warm1 personal relation which exists    
between the believer and the  ,pauline  
,christ4#aai ,the ,messiah of the       
apocalypses is hidden in  heaven4 ,he is
 revealed only as a great mystery1 and  
only to favored  men such as ,enoch4    
,even after the judgment1 although the  
righteous  are to be in company with    
,him1 there is no such account of ,his  

person as would make conceivable a      
living1 personal relationship  with     
,him4 ,the heavenly ,messiah of the     
apocalypses is a lifeless  figure1      
clothed in unapproachable light4 ,the   
risen ,christ of ,paul1  on the other   
hand1 is a person whom a man can love2  
indeed ,he is a  person whom as a matter
 of fact ,paul did love4 ,whence was    
derived  the concrete1 personal         
character of the ,christ of ,paul8 ,it  
was  certainly not derived from the     
,messiah of the apocalypses4 ,whence    
then was it derived8      #aai ,compare 
especially ,olschewski1 ,die ,wurzeln   
der paulinischen    ,christologie1      
#aiji4    ,the natural answer would be  
that it was derived from ,jesus of      
,nazareth4 ,the fact that the risen     
,christ of ,paul is not merely a        
heavenly figure but a person whom a man 
can love is most naturally  explained by
 supposing that ,paul attributed to the 
,messiah all the  concrete traits of the
 striking personality of ,jesus of      

,nazareth4  ,but this supposition is    
excluded by ,wrede's hypothesis4        
,indeed1  ,wrede supposes1 if ,paul had 
come into such close contact with the   
historical ,jesus as to have in his mind
 a full account of ,jesus'  words and   
deeds1 he could not easily have attached
 to ,him the  supernatural attributes of
 the heavenly ,son of ,man2 only a man  
who  stood remote from the real ,jesus  
could have regarded ,jesus as the       
instrument in creation and the final    
judge of all the world4 ,thus  the      
hypothesis of ,wrede and ,brckner faces 
a quandary4 ,in order to  explain the   
supernatural attributes of the ,pauline 
,christ1 ,paul has  to be placed near to
 the apocalypses and far from the       
historical  ,jesus2 whereas in order to 
explain the warm1 personal relation     
between ,paul and his ,christ1 ,paul    
would have to be placed near to  the    
historical ,jesus and far from the      
apocalypses4    ,this quandary could be 
avoided only by deriving the warm1      

personal  relation between ,paul and his
 ,christ from something other than the  
character of the historical ,jesus4     
,wrede and ,brckner might seek to       
derive it from the one fact of the      
crucifixion4 ,all that ,paul really     
derived from the historical ,jesus1     
according to ,wrede and ,brckner1  was  
the fact that the ,messiah had come to  
earth and died4 ,but that  one fact1 it 
might be maintained1 was sufficient to  
produce the  fervent ,christ-religion of
 ,paul4 ,for ,paul interpreted the death
 of  the ,messiah as a death suffered   
for the sins of others4 ,such a death   
involved self-sacrifice2 it must have   
been an act of love4 ,hence the         
beneficiaries were grateful2 hence the  
warm1 personal relationship  of ,paul to
 the one who had loved him and given    
,himself for him4#abj      #abj ,compare
 ,brckner1 ,die ,entstehung der         
paulinischen    ,christologie1 #aijc1 p4
 #bcg4    ,but how did the death of     
,jesus ever come to be interpreted by   

,paul  as a vicarious death of the      
,messiah8 ,the natural answer would be  
that it was because of something that   
,jesus had said or because of  an       
impression derived from ,his character4 
,that answer is excluded  by ,wrede's   
hypothesis4 ,how then did ,paul come to 
regard the death  of ,jesus as a        
vicarious death of the ,messiah8 ,it    
could only have  been because ,paul     
already had a doctrine of the vicarious 
death of  the ,messiah before his       
conversion4 ,but nothing is more        
unlikely4  ,there is in late            
pre-,christian ,jewish literature not a 
trace of  such a doctrine4#aba ,the     
,messiah in #d ,ezra is represented1    
indeed1  as dying1 but ,his death is of 
benefit to no one4 ,he dies1 along  with
 all the inhabitants of earth1 simply in
 order to make way  for the new         
world4#abb ,in ,justin ,martyr's        
,dialogue with ,trypho1  the ,jew       
,trypho is represented as admitting that
 the ,messiah was  to suffer4 ,but the  

suffering is not represented as         
vicarious4 ,and  since the ,dialogue was
 written in the middle of the second    
century  after ,christ1 the isolated    
testimony of ,trypho cannot be used as  
a witness to first-century conditions4  
,it is perfectly possible1  as ,schrer  
suggested1 that certain ,jews of the    
second century were  only led to concede
 the suffering of the ,messiah in the   
light of  the ,scriptural arguments     
advanced by the ,christians4 ,the       
rabbinical  evidence as to sufferings of
 the ,messiah is also too late to be    
used  in reconstructing the             
pre-,christian environment of ,paul4    
,and of  real evidence from the period  
just before ,paul's day there is none4  
,in #d ,maccabees vi4 #bh1 #bi1 indeed  
7less clearly in xvii4 #ba1 #bb71  the  
blood of the righteous is represented as
 bringing purification  for the people4 
,the dying martyr ,eleazar is           
represented as  praying3#abc ,be        
merciful unto thy people1 and let our   

punishment  be a satisfaction in their  
behalf4 ,make my blood their            
purification1  and take my soul to      
ransom their souls4 ,this passage1      
however1 is  entirely isolated4 ,there  
is no evidence whatever that the        
vicarious  suffering of the righteous   
was anything like an established        
doctrine  in the ,judaism of ,paul's    
day1 and in particular there is no      
evidence  that in pre-,christian        
,judaism the idea of vicarious suffering
 was  applied to the ,messiah4          
,undoubtedly ,isaiah liii might have    
formed a  basis for such an application2
 it may even seem surprising that that  
glorious passage was not more           
influential4 ,but as a matter of fact1  
,judaism was moving in a very different 
direction2 the later doctrine  of the   
,messiah had absolutely no place for a  
vicarious death or for  vicarious       
suffering4 ,all the sources are here in 
agreement4 ,neither  in the apocalypses 
nor in what is presupposed in the ,new  

,testament  about ,jewish belief is     
there any trace of a vicarious death of 
the  ,messiah4 ,indeed1 there is        
abundant evidence that such an idea was 
extremely repulsive to the ,jewish mind4
 ,the ,cross was unto the ,jews  a      
stumbling-block4#abd      #aba ,see     
,schrer1 op4 cit41 ii1 pp4 #fdh-fea     
7,english ,translation1    ,division    
,,ii1 vol4 ii1 pp4 #ahd-ahg74      #abb 
,it will be remembered1 moreover1 that  
#d ,ezra1 at least in its    completed  
form1 dates from long after the time of 
,paul4      #abc ,townshend1 in         
,charles1 op4 cit41 ii1 p4 #fgd4        
#abd ,b4 ,w4 ,bacon 7,jesus and ,paul1  
#aiba1 pp4 #de-di7 seeks to    bridge   
the gulf between ,jesus and ,paul by    
supposing that ,jesus    himself1       
somewhat like the ,maccabean hero1      
finally attained1 after    the failure  
of ,his original program and at the very
 close of ,his    life1 the conception  
that ,his approaching death was to be in
 some    sort an expiation for ,his     

people4 ,but the idea of expiation which
    ,bacon attributes to ,jesus is no   
doubt very different from the           
,pauline doctrine of the ,cross of      
,christ4 ,the gulf between ,jesus and   
,paul is therefore not really bridged4  
,moreover1 it cannot be said    that    
,bacon's hypothesis of successive stages
 in the experience of    ,jesus1        
culminating in the idea of expiation    
attained at the last    supper1 has     
really helped at all to solve the       
problem presented to    every historian 
who proceeds upon naturalistic          
presuppositions by    ,jesus' lofty     
claims4 ,at least1 however1 this latest 
investigator    of the problem of ,jesus
 and ,paul has betrayed a salutary      
consciousness of the fact that the      
,pauline conception of ,jesus'          
redemptive work is inexplicable unless  
it find some justification    in the    
mind of ,jesus ,himself4 ,only1 the     
justification which ,bacon    himself   
has found--particularly his account of  

the way in which the    idea of         
expiation is supposed to have arisen in 
,jesus' mind--is    entirely inadequate4
    ,thus the warm1 personal relation of
 love and gratitude which ,paul         
sustains to the risen ,christ is        
entirely unexplained by anything in  his
 ,jewish environment4 ,it is not        
explained by the ,jewish doctrine  of   
the ,messiah2 it is not explained by    
reflection upon the vicarious  death of 
the ,messiah4 ,for the ,messiah in      
,jewish expectation was  not to suffer a
 vicarious death4 ,such a relation of   
love and  gratitude could be sustained  
only toward a living person4 ,it could  
be sustained toward ,jesus of ,nazareth1
 if ,jesus continued to live  in glory1 
but it could not be sustained toward the
 ,messiah of the  apocalypses4    ,the  
third difference between the ,pauline   
,christ and the ,messiah  of the        
apocalypses concerns the very center of 
the ,pauline  conception--there is in   
the apocalypses no doctrine of the      

divinity  of the ,messiah4 ,in ,paul1   
the divinity of ,christ is presupposed  
on  every page4 ,the word divinity is   
indeed often being abused2 in  modern   
pantheizing liberalism1 it means        
absolutely nothing4 ,but the  divinity  
of ,christ in the ,pauline ,epistles is 
to be understood in  the highest        
possible sense4 ,the ,pauline doctrine  
of the divinity of  ,christ is not      
dependent upon individual passages2 it  
does not depend  upon the question      
whether in ,rom4 ix4 #e ,paul applies   
the term ,god  to ,christ4 ,certainly he
 does so by any natural interpretation  
of his  words4 ,but what is far more    
important is that the term ,lord in  the
 ,pauline ,epistles1 the characteristic 
,pauline name of ,christ1 is  every whit
 as much a designation of deity as is   
the term ,god4#abe  ,everywhere in the  
,epistles1 moreover1 the attitude of    
,paul toward  ,christ is not merely the 
attitude of man to man1 or scholar to   
master2 it is the attitude of man toward

 ,god4      #abe ,see ,warfield1 ',god  
our ,father and the ,lord ,jesus        
,christ1' in    ,princeton ,theological 
,review1 xv1 #aiag1 pp4 #a-bj4    ,such 
an attitude is absent from the          
apocalyptic representation of  the      
,messiah4 ,for example1 the way in which
 ,god and ,christ are linked  together  
regularly at the beginnings of the      
,pauline ,epistles--,god  our father and
 the ,lord ,jesus ,christ#abf--this can 
find no real  parallel in #a ,enoch4    
,the isolated passages 7#a ,enoch xlix4 
#aj2 lxx4  #a7 where in #a ,enoch the   
,lord of ,spirits and the ,son of ,man  
or the  ,elect ,one are linked together 
by the word and1 do not begin to        
approach the height of the ,pauline     
conception4 ,it is not surprising  and  
not particularly significant that the   
wicked are designated in  one passage as
 those who have denied the ,lord of     
,spirits and ,his  anointed 7#a ,enoch  
xlix4 #aj74 ,such an expression would be
 natural  even if the ,anointed ,one    

were1 for example1 merely an earthly    
king  of ,david's line4 ,what is        
characteristic of ,paul1 on the other   
hand1  is that ,god the ,father and the 
,lord ,jesus ,christ are not merely     
united by the conjunction and in        
isolated passages--that might  happen   
even if they belonged to different      
spheres of being--but  are united       
regularly and as a matter of course1 and
 are just as  regularly separated from  
all other beings except the ,holy       
,spirit4  ,moreover1 ,god and ,christ1  
in ,paul1 have attributed to them the   
same  functions4 ,grace and peace1 for  
example1 come equally from both4  ,such 
a representation would be quite         
incongruous in #a ,enoch4 ,equally      
incongruous in #a ,enoch would be the   
,pauline separation of the ,christ  from
 ordinary humanity and from angels4 ,the
 author of #a ,enoch could  hardly have 
said1 ,not from men nor through a man   
but through the  ,elect ,one and the    
,lord of ,spirits1 as ,paul says1 ,not  

from men  nor through a man but through 
,jesus ,christ and ,god the ,father who 
raised him from the dead 7,gal4 i4 #a74 
,on the other hand1 the way in  which #a
 ,enoch includes the ,elect ,one in the 
middle of a long list of  beings who    
praise the ,lord of ,spirits 7#a ,enoch 
lxi4 #aj1 #aa7 would be  absolutely     
inconceivable in ,paul4      #abf       
,warfield1 loc4 cit4    ,this stupendous
 difference is established not by       
isolated passages1  but by every page of
 the ,pauline ,epistles4 ,the ,pauline  
,christ is  exalted to an infinite      
height above the ,messiah of the        
apocalypses4  ,how did ,he reach this   
height8 ,was it because ,he was         
identified with  ,jesus of ,nazareth8   
,but that identification1 if ,jesus of  
,nazareth  were a mere man1 would have  
dragged ,him down rather than lifted    
,him up4 ,there lies the unsolved       
problem4 ,even if ,paul before his      
conversion believed in the heavenly     
,messiah of the apocalypses1  he had to 

exalt that ,messiah far beyond all that 
had ever been  attributed to ,him in the
 boldest visions of the ,jewish seers1  
before  he could produce the ,christ of 
the ,epistles4 ,yet the only new thing  
that had entered ,paul's life was       
identification of the ,messiah with     
,jesus4 ,why did that identification    
lift the ,messiah to the throne of      
,god8 ,who was this ,jesus1 who by ,his 
identification with the ,messiah1       
lifted the ,messiah even far above men's
 wildest dreams8    ,thus the ,messianic
 doctrine of the apocalypses is an      
insufficient  basis for the ,pauline    
,christology4 ,its insufficiency is     
admitted by  ,hans ,windisch4#abg ,but  
,windisch seeks to supply what is       
lacking  in the apocalyptic ,messiah by 
appealing to the ,jewish doctrine of    
,wisdom4 ,the apocalyptic doctrine of   
the ,messiah1 ,windisch admits1  will   
not explain the origin of the ,pauline  
,christology2 for example1  it will not 
explain ,paul's doctrine of the activity

 of ,christ in  creation4 ,but ,wisdom  
is thought to supply the lack4      #abg
 ,die gttliche ,weisheit der ,juden und 
die paulinische    ,christologie1 in    
,neutestamentliche ,studien ,georg      
,heinrici    dargebracht1 #aiad1 pp4    
#bbj-bcd4    ,in ,prov4 viii1 wisdom is 
celebrated in lofty terms1 and is said  
to have existed before the creation of  
the world4 ,wisdom is here  boldly      
personified in a poetic way4 ,but she is
 not regarded as a  real person separate
 from ,god4 ,in later books1 however1   
notably  in the ,alexandrian ,wisdom of 
,solomon1 the personification is        
developed until it seems to involve     
actual personality4 ,wisdom seems  to be
 regarded as an hypostasis1 a figure in 
some sort distinct  from ,god4 ,this    
hypostasis1 ,windisch believes1 was     
identified by ,paul  with ,christ1 and  
the result was the ,pauline             
,christology4    ,the figure of ,wisdom1
 ,windisch believes1 will supply two    
elements  in the ,pauline               

,christ-religion which are lacking in   
the ,messiah  of the apocalypses4 ,in   
the first place1 it will account for the
  ,pauline notion that ,christ was      
active in creation1 since ,wisdom in    
,jewish belief is repeatedly represented
 as the assessor or even the  instrument
 of the ,creator4 ,in the second place1 
it will account for  the intimate       
relation between ,paul and his ,christ1 
since ,wisdom is  represented in the    
,wisdom of ,solomon as entering into the
 wise  man1 and the wise man seems to be
 represented in ,proverbs viii and  in  
,ecclesiasticus as the mouthpiece of    
,wisdom4#abh      #abh ,windisch1 op4   
cit41 p4 #bbf4    ,but when was the     
identification of the ,messiah with     
,wisdom  accomplished8 ,was it          
accomplished by ,paul himself after his 
conversion8 ,or was it received by ,paul
 from pre-,christian ,jewish  doctrine8 
,if it was accomplished by ,paul himself
 after his  conversion1 then absolutely 
no progress has been made toward the    

explanation of the ,pauline             
,christology4 ,how did ,paul come to    
identify ,jesus of ,nazareth with the   
divine figure of ,wisdom8 ,it  could    
only have been because ,jesus was such a
 person as to make the  identification  
natural4 ,but that supposition is of    
course excluded  by the naturalistic    
principles with which ,windisch is      
operating4  ,the identification of      
,jesus with ,wisdom at or after the     
conversion  is1 therefore1 absolutely   
inexplicable2 in substituting ,wisdom   
for  the apocalyptic ,messiah as the    
basis of the ,pauline ,christology1     
,windisch has destroyed whatever measure
 of plausibility the theory  of ,wrede  
and ,brckner possessed4 ,for it is      
really essential to  ,wrede's theory    
that ,paul before his conversion had not
 only believed  in the existence of a   
heavenly being like the ,son of ,man of 
#a ,enoch1  but had also expected that  
heavenly being to appear4 ,since he had 
expected the heavenly being to appear1  

it might seem to be not so  absolutely  
inexplicable that he came to think that 
that being had  actually appeared in the
 person of ,jesus4 ,but no one expected 
,wisdom  to appear1 in any more definite
 way than by the entrance which she  had
 already accomplished into the hearts of
 wise men4 ,the thought  of an          
incarnation or a parousia of ,wisdom is 
absolutely foreign to  ,jewish thought4 
,what possible reason was there1 then1  
for ,paul to  think that ,wisdom        
actually had appeared and would finally 
appear  again in the person of ,jesus8  
,thus the theory of ,windisch can be    
maintained only if the  identification  
of ,wisdom with the ,messiah was        
accomplished not by  ,paul after the    
conversion but by pre-,christian        
,judaism4 ,if ,paul's  pre-,christian   
doctrine of the ,messiah already        
contained vital  elements drawn from the
 doctrine of ,wisdom1 then and then only
  might it be held that the ,pauline    
,christ1 with ,his activity in  creation

 and ,his spiritual indwelling in the   
believer1 was merely  the pre-,christian
 ,messiah4 ,but was the pre-,christian  
,messiah ever  identified with the      
hypostasis ,wisdom8 ,upon an affirmative
 answer  to this question depends the   
whole structure of ,windisch's theory4  
,but ,windisch passes the question over 
rather lightly4 ,he tries1  indeed1 to  
establish certain coincidences between  
the doctrine of  the ,messiah in #a     
,enoch and in the ,septuagint           
translation of ,micah v4  #b and ,ps4   
cx4 #c on the one hand1 and the         
descriptions of ,wisdom on  the other2  
but the coincidences apparently amount  
to nothing except  the ascription of    
prexistence to both figures4 ,but the   
fundamental  trouble is that ,windisch  
has an entirely inadequate conception of
  what really needs to be proved4 ,what 
,windisch really needs to do  is to     
ascribe to the pre-,christian doctrine  
of the ,messiah two  elements--activity 
in creation and spiritual               

indwelling--which in  the extant sources
 are found not at all in the            
descriptions of the  ,messiah but only  
in the descriptions of ,wisdom4 ,even if
 he succeeded  in establishing verbal   
dependence of the descriptions of the   
,messiah  upon the descriptions of      
,wisdom1 that would not really prove his
  point at all4 ,such verbal dependence 
as a matter of fact has not  been       
established1 but if it were established 
it would be without  significance4 ,it  
would be far more completely devoid of  
significance  than is the similarity    
between the descriptions of the heavenly
  ,messiah as judge and the descriptions
 of ,god as judge4 ,this latter         
similarity may be significant1 when     
taken in connection with other          
evidence1 as being a true anticipation  
of the ,christian doctrine  of the deity
 of ,christ1 but in itself it will      
hardly be held 7at  least it will hardly
 be held by ,windisch7 to establish the 
complete  personal identity1 in ,jewish 

thinking1 of the ,messiah and ,god1 so  
that everything that is said about ,god 
in pre-,christian ,jewish  sources can  
henceforth be applied to the ,messiah4  
,why then should  similarity in language
 between the descriptions of the ,wisdom
 of ,god  as prexistent and the         
descriptions of the ,messiah as         
prexistent  7even if that similarity    
existed7 establish such identity between
  the ,messiah and ,wisdom that what is 
attributed to ,wisdom 7notably          
spiritual indwelling7 can henceforth be 
attributed to the ,messiah8  ,there is  
really no evidence whatever for         
supposing that the ,messiah  was        
conceived of in pre-,christian ,judaism 
either as being active in  creation or  
as dwelling in the hearts of men4       
,indeed1 with regard  to the latter     
point1 there is decisive evidence of the
 contrary4  ,the figure of the ,messiah 
in the apocalypses is as incongruous as 
anything can possibly be with the idea  
of spiritual indwelling4  ,wisdom is    

conceived of as dwelling in the hearts  
of men only because  ,wisdom in ,jewish 
literature is not really or completely a
 concrete  person1 but is also an       
abstract quality4 ,the ,messiah is a    
concrete  person and hence is not       
thought of as indwelling4 ,it was       
something  absolutely without precedent1
 therefore1 when ,paul regarded his     
,christ--who is nothing if not a person1
 and a person who may be  loved--as     
dwelling in the heart of the believer4  
,objection will no doubt be raised      
against this treatment of the  idea of  
personality4 ,wisdom1 we have argued1   
was never in ,jewish  literature        
regarded consistently as a person       
distinct from ,god2  whereas the        
,messiah was always regarded as a       
person4 ,against this  argument it will 
be objected that the ancient world      
possessed no  idea of personality at    
all1 so that the difference between     
,wisdom  and the ,messiah disappears4   
,but what is meant by the objection8 ,if

  it is meant only that the ancient     
world possessed no definition of        
personality1 the point may perhaps be   
conceded4 ,but it is quite  irrelevant4 
,if1 on the other hand1 what is meant is
 that the  ancients had no way of       
distinguishing between a person and a   
mere  quality1 no way of feeling the    
difference even if the difference  could
 not be put into words1 then an emphatic
 denial is in place4  ,without such a   
power of practical1 if not theoretical1 
distinction1  no mental or moral life at
 all1 to say nothing of the highly      
developed life of the ,hellenistic age1 
would have been possible4 ,it  is highly
 important1 therefore1 to observe that  
,wisdom in ,jewish  literature hardly   
becomes regarded as a person in any     
consistent  way4 ,undoubtedly the       
hypostasizing has gone to considerable  
lengths1  but it is always possible for 
the writers to hark back to the         
original sense of the word wisdom--to   
play at least upon the  original        

meaning4 ,wisdom seems to be treated not
 merely as a person  but also as an     
attribute of ,god4    ,thus ,windisch is
 entirely unjustified when he uses      
passages which  represent the ,messiah  
as possessing wisdom to prove that the  
,messiah was regarded as identical with 
,wisdom4 ,a striking example  of this   
mistake is found in the treatment of #a 
,enoch xlix4 #c1 where  it is said that 
in the ,elect ,one dwells the spirit of 
wisdom1 and  the spirit which gives     
insight1 and the spirit of understanding
  and of might and the spirit of those  
who have fallen asleep in               
righteousness4 ,a still more striking   
example is found in the use  of #a ,cor4
 i4 #bd1 #cj1 where ,christ crucified is
 called the power of  ,god and the      
wisdom of ,god1 and is said to have     
become to believers  wisdom and         
justification and sanctification and    
redemption4 ,windisch  actually uses    
these passages as evidence for the      
application to the  apocalyptic ,messiah

 and to the ,pauline ,christ of the     
attributes of  the hypostasis ,wisdom4  
,could anything be more utterly         
unwarranted8  ,the inclusion of wisdom  
in a considerable list of what the ,son 
of ,man possesses or of what ,christ    
means to the believer1 far  from proving
 that #a ,enoch or ,paul identified the 
,messiah with the  hypostasized ,wisdom1
 rather proves1 if proof be necessary1  
that they  did not make the             
identification4 ,it is a very different 
thing to say  that ,christ possesses    
wisdom 7along with other qualities7 or  
brings  wisdom to the believer 7along   
with other gifts7 from saying that      
,christ is so identical with the        
hypostasis ,wisdom of the wisdom        
literature that what is there said about
 ,wisdom is to be attributed  to ,him4  
,windisch himself observes1 very        
significantly1 that ,paul  could not    
actually designate ,christ as ,wisdom   
because the word  wisdom is of feminine 
gender in ,greek4 ,the difference of    

gender is  here the symbol of a profound
 difference in essential character4 ,the
  figure of ,wisdom in ,jewish          
literature1 with its curious vacillation
  between personality and abstraction1  
is absolutely incongruous with  the     
warm1 living1 concrete1 personal figure 
of the ,pauline ,christ4  ,the two      
belong to totally different circles of  
ideas4 ,no wonder that  even ,bousset   
7as ,windisch complains7 has not        
ventured to bring them  into connection4
 ,the ,pauline ,christology was         
certainly not based  upon the           
pre-,christian doctrine of ,wisdom4     
,thus the first great objection to      
,wrede's derivation of the ,pauline     
,christology is that it is simply       
insufficient4 ,the ,messiah of the      
,jewish apocalypses is not great enough 
to have been the basis of  the ,pauline 
,christ4 ,if before the conversion ,paul
 had believed in  the apocalyptic       
,messiah1 then when he was converted he 
lifted his  conception to far greater   

heights than it had before attained4    
,but  what caused him to do so8         
,apparently he ought to have done       
exactly  the reverse4 ,if ,jesus was a  
mere man1 then the identification of the
  ,messiah with ,him ought to have      
pushed the conception of the ,messiah   
down instead of lifting it up4 ,as      
,baldensperger significantly  remarks1  
the ,jewish apocalyptists faced less    
difficulty in  presenting a transcendent
 ,messiah than did their successors1 the
  exponents of a metaphysical           
,christology in the ,christian ,church1 
since the ,jewish apocalyptists could   
give free course to their  fancy1       
whereas the ,christians were hampered by
 the recollections  of the earthly      
,jesus4#abi ,this observation1 on the   
basis of  ,baldensperger's naturalistic 
presuppositions1 is entirely correct4   
,but the strange thing is that the      
recollections of ,jesus1 far  from      
hampering the ,christians in their      
ascription of supernatural  attributes  

to the ,messiah1 actually had just the  
opposite effect4  ,paul furnishes a     
striking example4 ,before he identified 
the ,messiah  with ,jesus1 he did not   
really think of the ,messiah as         
divine--not  even if he believed in the 
transcendent ,messiah of #a ,enoch4 ,but
  after he identified the ,messiah with 
,jesus1 he said not by man but  by      
,christ4 ,why was it that identification
 with ,jesus1 instead of  bringing the  
apocalyptic ,messiah down to earth1     
lifted ,him rather  to the throne of    
,god8 ,was it1 after all1 because of    
something in  ,jesus8 ,if it was1 then  
the eternal ,son of ,god walked upon    
earth1 and  suffered for the sins of    
men4 ,if it was not1 then the           
fundamental  historical problem of      
,christianity is still entirely         
unsolved4      #abi ,baldensperger1 op4 
cit41 p4 #abf4    ,but another objection
 faces the solution proposed by ,wrede  
and  ,brckner4 ,suppose the apocalyptic 
doctrine of the ,messiah were  really   

adequate to the strain which is placed  
upon it4 ,suppose  it really represented
 the ,messiah as active in creation and 
as  indwelling in the hearts of the     
faithful and as exalted to the  throne  
of ,god4 ,these suppositions are        
entirely without warrant  in the facts2 
they transcend by far even the claims of
 ,wrede and  ,brckner themselves4 ,but  
suppose they were correct4 ,even then   
the  genesis of ,paul's religion would  
not be explained4 ,suppose the  ,pauline
 doctrine of the ,messiah really was    
complete in his mind  before he was     
converted4 ,even then1 another problem  
remains4 ,how  did he come to identify  
his exalted ,messiah with a ,jew who had
  lived but a few years before and had  
died a shameful death8 ,the  thing might
 be explained if ,jesus was what ,he is 
represented in  all of the extant       
sources as being--a supernatural person 
whose  glory shone out plain even       
through the veil of flesh4 ,it might be 
explained if ,paul before his conversion

 really believed that the  heavenly     
,christ was to come to earth before ,his
 final parousia and  die an accursed    
death4 ,but the former alternative is   
excluded by the  naturalistic           
presuppositions of the modern man4 ,and 
the latter is  excluded by an           
overwhelming weight of evidence as to   
pre-,christian  ,judaism and the        
pre-,christian life of ,paul4 ,how then 
did ,paul come  to identify his heavenly
 ,messiah with ,jesus of ,nazareth8 ,it 
could  only have been through the       
strange experience which he had near    
,damascus4 ,but what1 in turn1 caused   
that experience8 ,no answer1 on  the    
basis of naturalistic presuppositions1  
has yet been given4 ,in  removing the   
supernatural from the earthly life of   
,jesus1 modern  naturalism has precluded
 the only possible naturalistic         
explanation  of the conversion of ,paul4
 ,if ,jesus had given evidence of being 
the heavenly ,son of ,man1 then ,paul   
might conceivably1 though  still not    

probably1 have become convinced against 
his will1 and  might1 conceivably though
 still not probably1 have experienced an
  hallucination in which he thought he  
saw ,jesus living in glory4 ,but  if    
,jesus was a mere man1 the              
identification of ,him with the heavenly
  apocalyptic ,messiah becomes          
inconceivable1 and the experience       
through which that identification took  
place is left absolutely  uncaused4     
,thus the hypothesis of ,wrede and      
,brckner defeats itself4  ,in arguing   
that ,paul's pre-conversion conception  
of the ,messiah was  not a conception of
 a mere earthly being or the like1 but  
that of a  transcendent being1 ,wrede   
and ,brckner are really digging the     
grave  of their own theory4 ,for the    
more exalted was the ,messiah in whom   
,paul believed before his conversion1   
the more inexplicable becomes  the      
identification of that ,messiah with a  
crucified malefactor4    ,but still     
another objection remains4 ,suppose the 

,pauline ,christ  were simply the       
,messiah of the ,jewish apocalypses2    
suppose ,paul  knew so little about the 
historical ,jesus that he could even    
identify the exalted ,messiah with ,him4
 ,even then another fact  requires      
explanation4 ,how did ,paul come to be  
so strikingly similar  to the historical
 ,jesus both in teaching and in         
character8 ,wrede  was audacious enough 
to explain the similarity as due to a   
common  dependence upon ,judaism4#acj   
,but at this point few have followed    
him4 ,for the striking fact is that     
,paul agrees with ,jesus in just  those 
matters to which ,judaism was most      
signally opposed4 ,it would  be more    
plausible to say that ,paul agrees with 
,jesus because  both of them abandoned  
contemporary ,judaism and returned to   
the  ,old ,testament prophets4 ,but even
 that explanation would be quite        
inadequate4 ,the similarity between     
,jesus and ,paul goes far beyond  what  
both hold in common with the ,prophets  

and the ,psalms4 ,and why  did two men  
return to the ,prophets and ,psalms at  
just the same time  and in just the same
 way8 ,the similarity between ,jesus and
 ,paul  might then be regarded as due to
 mere chance4 ,paul1 it might be        
supposed1 developed the ideal of        
,christian love from the death of  the  
,messiah1 which he interpreted as an act
 of self-sacrifice4#aca  ,this ideal of 
love happened to be just the same as    
that which  ,jesus of ,nazareth         
exemplified in a life of service--to    
which  life of service1 however1 ,paul  
was completely indifferent4 ,such1      
essentially1 is what the hypothesis of  
,wrede really amounts to4  ,the         
hypothesis is really absurd4 ,but its   
absurdity is instructive4  ,it is an    
absurdity to which the naturalistic     
account of the origin  of ,christianity 
is driven by an inexorable logic4 ,paul1
 it must be  supposed1 could not have   
regarded ,jesus as a divine being if he 
had  really known ,jesus4 ,the          

similarity of his life and teaching to  
that of ,jesus cannot1 therefore1 be due
 to knowledge of ,jesus4 ,it  must      
therefore be due to chance4 ,in other   
words1 it is dangerous1  on naturalistic
 principles1 to bring ,paul into contact
 with ,jesus4  ,for if he is brought    
into contact with ,jesus1 his witness to
 ,jesus  will have to be heard4 ,and    
when his witness is heard1 the elaborate
  modern reconstructions of the liberal 
,jesus fall to the ground4  ,for        
according to ,paul1 ,jesus was no mere  
,galilean prophet1 but the  ,lord of    
,glory4      #acj ,wrede1 ,paulus1      
#aijd1 pp4 #ij1 #ia 7,english           
,translation1    ,paul1 #aijg1 pp4 #aeg1
 #aeh74      #aca ,see ,brckner1 op4    
cit41 p4 #bcg4          ,,chapter ,,vi  
,,the ,,religion ,,of ,,the             
,,hellenistic ,,age          ,,chapter  
,,vi    ,,the ,,religion ,,of ,,the     
,,hellenistic ,,age      ,it has been   
shown in the last chapter that the      
religion of ,paul was  not derived from 

the pre-,christian ,jewish doctrine of  
the ,messiah4  ,if1 therefore1 the      
derivation of ,paulinism from the       
historical ,jesus  is still to be       
abandoned1 recourse must be had to the  
pagan world4  ,and as a matter of fact1 
it is in the pagan world that the       
genesis  of ,paulinism is to-day more   
and more frequently being sought4 ,the  
following chapters will deal with that  
hypothesis which makes the  religion of 
,paul essentially a product of the      
syncretistic pagan  religion of the     
,hellenistic age4    ,this hypothesis is
 not only held in many different forms1 
but also  enters into combination with  
the view which has been considered in   
the last chapter4 ,for example1 ,m4     
,brckner1 who regards the ,pauline      
,christology as being simply the ,jewish
 conception of the ,messiah1  modified  
by the episode of the ,messiah's        
humiliation1 is by no means  hostile to 
the hypothesis of pagan influence4 ,on  
the contrary1 he  brings the ,jewish    

conception of the ,messiah upon which   
the ,pauline  ,christology is thought to
 be based1 itself into connection with  
the  widespread pagan myth of a dying   
and rising saviour-god4#acb ,thus       
,brckner is at one with the modern      
school of comparative religion  in      
deriving ,paul's religion from paganism2
 only he derives it  from paganism not  
directly but through the medium of the  
,jewish  conception of the ,messiah4 ,on
 the other hand1 most of those who  find
 direct and not merely mediate pagan    
influence at the heart of  the religion 
of ,paul are also willing to admit that 
some important  influences came through 
pre-,christian ,judaism--notably1       
through the  ,messianic expectations of 
the apocalypses4 ,the division between  
the  subject of the present chapter and 
that of the preceding chapter is        
therefore difficult to carry out4       
,nevertheless1 that division will  be   
found convenient4 ,it will be well to   
consider separately the  hypothesis 7now

 in the very forefront of interest7     
which derives  ,paulinism1 not from the 
historical ,jesus1 and not from         
pre-,christian  ,judaism1 but from the  
pagan religion of the ,greco-,roman     
world4      #acb ,brckner1 ,der         
sterbende und auferstehende             
,gottheiland1 #aijh4    ,here1 as in the
 last chapter1 the discussion may begin 
with a brief  review of that type of    
religion from which ,paulinism is       
thought  to have been derived4 ,the     
review will again have to be of a most  
cursory character1 and will make free   
use of recent researches4#acc  ,those   
researches are becoming more and more   
extensive in recent  years4 ,the        
,hellenistic age is no longer regarded  
as a period of  hopeless decadence1 but 
is commanding a larger and larger share 
of  attention from philologians and from
 students of the history of  religion4  
,the sources1 however1 so far as the    
sphere of popular  religion is          
concerned1 are rather meager4 ,complete 

unanimity of  opinion1 therefore1 even  
regarding fundamental matters1 has by no
  means been attained4      #acc ,for   
example1 ,rohde1 ,psyche1 #b ,bde1 #cte 
,aufl41 #aijc2 ,farnell1    ,cults of   
the ,greek ,states1 vol4 iii1 #aijg2    
,wendland1 ,die    hellenistisch-rmische
 ,kultur1 #bte u4 #cte ,aufl41 #aiab2   
,anrich1 ,das    antike ,mysterienwesen1
 #ahid2 ,cumont1 ,les religions         
orientales dans    le paganisme romain1 
#b;ime d41 #aiji 7,english ,translation1
 ,the    ,oriental ,religions in ,roman 
,paganism1 #aiaa74    ,at the time of   
,paul1 the civilized world was unified1 
politically1  under the ,roman ,empire4 
,the native religion of ,rome1 however1 
was  not an important factor in the life
 of the ,empire--certainly not in  the  
,east4 ,that religion had been closely  
bound up with the life of  the ,roman   
city-state4 ,it had been concerned      
largely with a system of  auguries and  
religious ceremonies intended to guide  
the fortunes of  the city and insure the

 favor of the gods4 ,but there had been 
little  attempt to enter into any sort  
of personal contact with the gods or    
even to produce any highly              
differentiated account of their nature4 
,the native religion of ,rome1 on the   
whole1 seems to have been rather  a     
cold1 unsatisfying affair4 ,it aroused  
the emotions of the people  only because
 it was an expression of stern and      
sturdy patriotism4  ,and it tended to   
lose its influence when the horizon of  
the people  was broadened by contact    
with the outside world4    ,the most    
important change was wrought by contact 
with ,greece4 ,when  ,rome began to     
extend her conquests into the ,east1 the
 eastern  countries1 to a very          
considerable extent1 had already been   
,hellenized1 by the conquests of        
,alexander and by the ,greek kingdoms   
into which his short-lived empire had   
been divided4 ,thus the ,roman          
conquerors came into contact with ,greek
 civilization1 not only in  the ,greek  

colonies in ,sicily and southern ,italy1
 not only in ,greece  proper and on the 
gean coast of ,asia ,minor1 but also to 
some extent  everywhere in the eastern  
world4 ,no attempt was made to root out 
the ,greek influences4 ,on the contrary1
 the conquerors to a very  considerable 
extent were conquered by those whom they
 had conquered2  ,rome submitted        
herself1 in the spiritual sphere1 to the
 dominance of  ,greece4    ,the ,greek  
influence extended into the sphere of   
religion4 ,at a very  early time1 the   
ancient ,roman gods were identified with
 the ,greek  gods who possessed roughly 
analogous functions--,jupiter became    
,zeus1  for example1 and ,venus became  
,aphrodite4 ,this identification brought
  an important enrichment into ,roman   
religion4 ,the cold and lifeless        
figures of the ,roman pantheon began to 
take on the grace and beauty  and the   
clearly defined personal character which
 had been given to  their ,greek        
counterparts by ,homer and ,hesiod and  

the dramatists  and ,phidias and        
,praxiteles4 ,thus it is not to the     
ancient official  religion of ,rome but 
to the rich pantheon of ,homer that the 
student  must turn in order to find the 
spiritual ancestry of the religion of   
the ,hellenistic world4    ,even before 
the time of ,homer1 ,greek religion had 
undergone  development4 ,modern         
scholarship1 at least1 is no longer     
inclined  to find in ,homer the artless 
simplicity of a primitive age4 ,on the  
contrary1 the ,homeric poems1 it is now 
supposed1 were the product  of a highly 
developed1 aristocratic society1 which  
must be thought  of as standing at the  
apex of a social order4 ,thus it is not 
to be  supposed that the religion of    
,homer was the only ,hellenic religion  
of ,homer's day4 ,on the contrary1 even 
in the ,homeric poems1 it is  said1     
there appear here and there remnants of 
a popular primitive  religion--human    
sacrifice and the like--and many of the 
rough1  primitive conceptions which crop

 out in ,greek life in the later        
centuries were really present long      
before the ,homeric age1 and had  been  
preserved beneath the surface in the    
depths of a non-literary  popular       
religion4 ,however much of truth there  
may be in these  contentions1 it is at  
any rate clear that the ,homeric poems  
exerted  an enormous influence upon     
subsequent generations4 ,even if they   
were the product of a limited circle1   
even if they never succeeded  in        
eradicating the primitive conceptions1  
at least they did gain  enormous        
prestige and did become the most        
important single factor in  molding the 
religion of the golden age of ,greece4  
,as determined by the ,homeric poems1   
the religion of ,greece was a  highly   
developed polytheism of a thoroughly    
anthropomorphic kind4  ,the ,greek gods 
were simply men and women1 with human   
passions and  human sins--more powerful1
 indeed1 but not more righteous than    
those who worshiped them4 ,such a       

religion was stimulating to the  highest
 art4 ,anthropomorphism gave free course
 to the imagination  of poets and       
sculptors4 ,there is nothing lifeless   
about the gods  of ,greece2 whether     
portrayed by the chisel of sculptors or 
the pen  of poets1 they are warm1       
living1 breathing1 human figures4 ,but  
however stimulating to the sense of     
beauty1 the anthropomorphic  religion of
 ,greece was singularly unsatisfying in 
the moral sphere4  ,if the gods were no 
better than men1 the worship of them was
 not  necessarily ennobling4 ,no doubt  
there was a certain moral quality  in   
the very act of worship4 ,for worship   
was not always conceived  of as mere    
prudent propitiation of dangerous       
tyrants4 ,sometimes it  was conceived of
 as a duty1 like the pious reverence    
which a child  should exhibit toward his
 parent4 ,in the case of filial piety1  
as  in the case of piety toward the     
gods1 the duty of reverence is          
independent of the moral quality of the 

revered object4 ,but in  both cases the 
very act of reverence may possess a     
certain moral  value4 ,this admission1  
however1 does not change the essential  
fact4  ,it remains true that the        
anthropomorphic character of the gods of
  ,greece1 just because it stimulated   
the fancy of poets by attributing  human
 passions to the gods and so provided   
the materials of dramatic  art1 at the  
same time prevented religion from       
lifting society above  the prevailing   
standards4 ,the moral standards of snowy
 ,olympus1  unfortunately1 were not     
higher than those of the ,athenian      
market  place4    ,in another way also1 
the polytheistic religion of ,greece was
  unsatisfying4 ,it provided little hope
 of personal communion  between the gods
 and men4 ,religion1 in ,greece scarcely
 less than  in ancient ,rome1 was an    
affair of the state4 ,a man was born    
into  his religion4 ,an ,athenian       
citizen1 as such1 was a worshiper of the
  ,athenian gods4 ,there was little     

place for individual choice or  for     
individual devotion4 ,moreover1 there   
was little place for the  mystical      
element in religion4 ,the gods of       
,greece were in some sort1  indeed1     
companionable figures2 they were similar
 to men2 men could  understand the      
motives of their actions4 ,but there was
 no way in  which companionship with    
them could find expression4 ,there was a
  time1 indeed1 when the gods had come  
down to earth to help the great  heroes 
who were their favorites or their sons4 
,but such favors were  not given to     
ordinary mortals4 ,the gods might be    
revered1 but direct  and individual     
contact with them was for the most part 
not to be  attained4    ,these          
limitations1 however1 were not          
universal2 and for purposes  of the     
present investigation the exceptions are
 far more important  than the rule4 ,it 
is not true that the religion of        
,greece1 even  previous to the golden   
age1 was entirely devoid of enthusiasm  

or  individualism or mystic contact with
 the gods4 ,the polytheism of  ,homer1  
the polytheism of the ,olympic pantheon1
 despite its wide  prevalence was not   
the only form of ,greek religion4 ,along
 with the  worship of the ,olympic gods 
there went also religious practices of a
  very different kind4 ,there was a     
place even in ,greece for mystical      
religion4    ,this mystical or          
enthusiastic element in the religion of 
,greece is  connected especially with   
the worship of ,dionysus4 ,dionysus was 
not  originally a ,greek god4 ,he came  
from ,thrace and is very closely        
related to the ,phrygian ,sabazius4     
,but1 at an early time1 his worship  was
 widely adopted in the ,greek world4 ,no
 doubt it was not adopted  entirely     
without modification2 no doubt it was   
shorn of some of  those features which  
were most repulsive to the ,greek       
genius4 ,but  enough remained in order  
to affect very powerfully the character 
of  ,greek religion4    ,the worship of 

,dionysus supplied1 to some extent at   
least1 just  those elements which were  
lacking in the religion of the ,greek   
city-state4 ,in the first place1 there  
was direct contact with the  god4 ,the  
worshipers of ,dionysus sought to attain
 contact with the  god partly by a      
divine frenzy1 which was induced by wild
 music and  dancing1 and partly by the  
crass method of eating the raw flesh  of
 the sacred animal1 the bull4 ,no doubt 
these savage practices  were often      
modified when they were introduced into 
,greece4 ,it has  been thought1 for     
example1 that the frenzied dances and   
nightly  excursions to the wilds of the 
mountains1 which originally had  been   
carried on in true self-forgetfulness1  
became in ,greece rather  parts of an   
established cult4 ,but on the whole1 the
 influence of  ,dionysus-worship must be
 regarded as very great4 ,an element of 
true  mysticism or enthusiasm was       
introduced into the ,greek world4    ,in
 the second place1 the worship of       

,dionysus stimulated interest in  a     
future life4 ,the ,homeric poems had    
represented the existence of  the soul  
after death--at least the soul of an    
ordinary mortal--as  being a mere       
shadow-existence which could not be     
called life at  all4 ,it is indeed      
questionable whether at this point      
,homer truly  represented the original  
,hellenic belief1 or the popular belief 
even of the time when the poems were    
written4 ,modern scholars have  detected
 in the ,iliad and the ,odyssey here and
 there remnants  of a more positive     
doctrine of a future life4 ,but at any  
rate1  the worship of ,dionysus brought 
such positive beliefs--if they  existed 
in ,greece before--more to the surface4 
,thracian religion1  apparently1 had    
concerned itself to a very considerable 
extent with  the future condition of the
 soul2 the introduction of the ,thracian
  ,dionysus1 therefore1 stimulated a    
similar interest in ,greece4            
,finally1 the worship of ,dionysus      

tended to separate religion from  the   
state and make it partly at least an    
affair of the individual  man4 ,such    
individualism is connected of course    
with the enthusiastic  character of the 
worship2 a state religion as such is not
 likely to  be enthusiastic4 ,the whole 
body of citizens cannot be possessed of 
a divine frenzy1 and if not1 then those 
who have the experience are  likely to  
separate themselves to some extent from 
their countrymen4  ,it is not           
surprising1 therefore1 that the         
worshipers of ,dionysus1  here and      
there1 were inclined to unite themselves
 in sects or  brotherhoods4    ,the most
 important of these brotherhoods were   
connected with the  name of ,orpheus1   
the mythical musician and seer4 ,the    
origin of  the ,orphic sects is indeed  
very obscure4 ,apparently1 however1     
they sprang up or became influential in 
the sixth century before  ,christ1 and  
were connected in some way with         
,dionysus4 ,they seem to  have          

represented a reform of ,dionysiac      
practice4 ,at any rate1 they  continued 
that interest in the future life which  
the worship of  ,dionysus had already   
cultivated4 ,orphism is especially      
important  because it taught men to     
expect in the future life not only      
rewards  but also punishments4 ,the soul
 after death1 according to ,orphic      
doctrine1 was subject to an indefinite  
succession of reincarnations1  not only 
in the bodies of men1 but also in those 
of animals4  ,these reincarnations were 
regarded as an evil1 because the body   
was thought of as a prison-house of the 
soul4 ,at last1 however1  the righteous 
soul attains purification1 and1 escaping
 from the  succession of births1 enters 
into a blessed existence4    ,related in
 some way to the ,orphic sects were the 
brotherhoods that  owned ,pythagoras as 
their master4 ,but the relation between 
the two  movements is not perfectly     
plain4    ,at any rate1 both ,orphism   
and ,pythagoreanism stand apart from    

the official cults of the ,greek states4
 ,even within those cults1  however1    
there were not wanting some elements    
which satisfied more  fully than the    
ordinary worship of the ,olympic gods   
the longing of  individual men for      
contact with the higher powers and for a
 blessed  immortality4 ,such elements   
were found in the mysteries1 of which   
far the most important were the         
mysteries of ,eleusis4#acd ,the         
,eleusinian ,mysteries originated in the
 worship of ,demeter that was  carried  
on at ,eleusis1 a town in ,attica some  
fifteen miles from  ,athens4 ,when      
,eleusis was conquered by ,athens1 the  
,eleusinian cult of  ,demeter1 far from 
suffering eclipse1 was adopted by the   
conquerors  and so attained unparalleled
 influence4 ,characteristic of the cult 
as so developed was the secrecy of its  
central rites2 the ,eleusinian  cult of 
,demeter became 7if it was not one      
already7 a mystery-cult1  whose secrets 
were divulged only to the initiates4    

,the terms of  admission1 however1 were 
very broad4 ,all persons of ,greek race1
 even  slaves--except those persons who 
were stained with bloodguiltiness  or   
the like--could be admitted4 ,as so     
constituted1 the ,eleusinian  ,mysteries
 were active for some ten centuries2    
they continued until  the very end of   
pagan antiquity4      #acd ,on the      
,eleusinian ,mysteries and the cult of  
,demeter and    ,kore-,persephone1 see  
especially ,farnell1 op4 cit41 iii1 pp4 
#bi-bgi4    ,initiation into the        
mysteries took place ordinarily in three
 stages2  the candidate was first       
initiated into the lesser mysteries at  
,agr near ,athens in the spring2 then   
into a first stage of the  great        
mysteries at ,eleusis in the following  
autumn2 then a year  later his          
initiation was completed at ,eleusis by 
the reception of  the mystic vision4    
,the mysteries of ,eleusis were prepared
 for by a  succession of acts about     
which some information has been         

preserved4  ,these acts were extended   
over a period of days4 ,first the sacred
  objects were brought from ,eleusis to 
,athens4 ,then the candidates  for      
initiation1 who had purified themselves 
by abstinence from  certain kinds of    
food and from sexual intercourse1 were  
called  upon to assemble4 ,then1 at the 
cry1 ,to the sea1 ,o myst6 the          
candidates went to the sea-coast1 where 
they made sacrifice of a  pig1 and      
purified themselves by washing in the   
sea water4 ,then came  the solemn       
procession from ,athens to ,eleusis1    
interrupted by ribald  jests at the     
passage of the river ,cephissus4 ,the   
initiation itself  took place in the    
telesterion4 ,what happened there is    
obscure2  antiquity has well observed   
the secrecy which was essential to  the 
mysteries4 ,certainly1 however1 the     
ceremony was accompanied1  or rather1   
perhaps1 preceded1 by the drinking of   
the kykeon1 a  mixture composed of water
 and barley-meal and other ingredients4 

,the significance of this act is not    
really known4 ,it would be very  rash1  
for example1 to assert that the         
partaking of the kykeon  was            
sacramental1 or was thought of as       
imparting a new nature to  the          
recipients4 ,apparently the kykeon did  
not have a part in the  mysteries       
themselves1 for if it had1 it could     
hardly have been  spoken of so openly by
 pagan writers4 ,the mysteries seem to  
have  consisted in some sort of sacred  
drama1 representing the search of       
,demeter for her daughter ,persephone   
who had been carried off to the  lower  
world1 and in the exhibition of sacred  
emblems or of images  of the gods4      
,hippolytus scornfully says that the    
supreme object of  mystic awe was a cut 
corn-stalk4#ace ,his testimony is       
variously  estimated4 ,but it is quite  
possible that he has here given us      
genuine information4 ,since ,demeter was
 the goddess of the fertility  of the   
soil1 the corn-stalk was not ill fitted 

to be her sacred  emblem4      #ace     
,hippolytus1 ,ref4 omn4 haer41 ,v4 viii4
 #ci 7ed4 ,wendland1    #aiaf74    ,it  
has been supposed that the cult of      
,demeter at ,eleusis was  originally an 
agrarian cult1 intended to celebrate or 
to induce the  fertility of the soil4   
,but the chief significance of the      
mysteries  was found in another sphere4 
,in the mysteries1 the cult goddesses1  
,demeter and ,persephone1 were thought  
of chiefly as goddesses of the  nether  
world1 the abode of the dead2 and the   
mysteries were valued  chiefly as       
providing a guarantee of a blessed      
immortality4 ,how the  guarantee was    
given is quite obscure4 ,but the fact is
 well attested4  ,those who had been    
initiated into the mysteries were able  
to expect  a better lot in the future   
life than the lot of the generality of  
men4    ,the mysteries at ,eleusis were 
not the only mysteries which were       
practised in the golden age of ,greece4 
,there were not only offshoots  of the  

,eleusinian mysteries in various places1
 but also independent  mysteries like   
those of the ,kabeiri on the island of  
,samothrace4  ,but the mysteries at     
,eleusis were undoubtedly the most      
important1  and the others are even less
 fully known4 ,the moral value of the   
mysteries1 including those at ,eleusis1 
should not be exaggerated4  ,slight     
allusions in pagan writers seem to point
 here and there to a  purifying moral   
effect wrought by initiation4 ,but the  
indications  are not very clear4        
,certainly the secrets of ,eleusis did  
not consist  in any body of teaching1   
either religious or ethical4 ,the effect
 was  produced1 not upon the intellect1 
but upon the emotions and upon the      
imagination4    ,thus the religion of   
the golden age of ,greece was an        
anthropomorphic  polytheism1 closely    
connected with the life of the          
city-state1 but  relieved here and there
 by practices intended to provide more  
direct  contact with the divine or      

bestow special blessing upon            
individuals4    ,the religion of ,greece
 was finally undermined by at least     
three  agencies4    ,in the first place1
 philosophy tended to destroy belief in 
the  gods4 ,the philosophic criticism of
 the existing religion was partly       
theoretical and partly ethical4 ,the    
theoretical criticism arose  especially 
through the search for a unifying       
principle operative  in the universe4   
,if the manifold phenomena of the       
universe were  all reduced to a single  
cause1 the gods might indeed still be   
thought of as existing1 but their       
importance was gone4 ,there was  thus a 
tendency either toward monotheism or    
else toward some sort  of materialistic 
monism4 ,but the objections which       
philosophy  raised against the existing 
polytheism were ethical as well as      
theoretical4 ,the ,homeric myths were   
rightly felt to be immoral2 the         
imitation of the ,homeric gods would    
result in moral degradation4  ,thus if  

the myths were still to be retained they
 could not be  interpreted literally1   
but had to be given some kind of        
allegorical  interpretation4    ,this   
opposition of philosophy to the existing
 religion was often  not explicit1 and  
it did not concern religious practice4  
,even those  philosophers whose theory  
left no room for the existence or at    
least the importance of the gods1       
continued to engage loyally in  the     
established cults4 ,but although the    
superstructure of religion  remained1   
the foundation1 to some extent at least1
 was undermined4    ,in the second      
place1 since religion in ancient ,greece
 had been  closely connected with the   
city-states1 the destruction of the     
states brought important changes in     
religion4 ,the ,greek states lost  their
 independence through the conquests of  
,philip of ,macedon and  ,alexander the 
,great4 ,those conquests meant1 indeed1 
a wide extension  of ,greek culture     
throughout the eastern world4 ,but the  

religion of  ,alexander's empire and of 
the kingdoms into which it was divided  
after his death was widely different    
from the religion of ,athens in  her    
glory4 ,cosmopolitanism brought mighty  
changes in religion1 as in  the         
political sphere4    ,in the third      
place1 the influence of the eastern     
religions made  itself more and more    
strongly felt4 ,that influence was never
 indeed  dominant in the life of ,greece
 proper so completely as it was in  some
 other parts of the world4 ,but in      
general it was very important4  ,when   
the ,olympic gods lost their place in   
the minds and hearts of  men1 other gods
 were ready to take their place4        
,before any account can be given of the 
eastern religions taken  separately1 and
 of their progress toward the west1 it  
may be well to  mention certain general 
characteristics of the period which     
followed  the conquests of ,alexander4  
,that period1 which extended several    
centuries into the ,christian era1 is   

usually called the ,hellenistic  age1 to
 distinguish it from the ,hellenic      
period which had gone  before4    ,the  
,hellenistic age was characterized1 in  
the first place1 by  cosmopolitanism4   
,natural and racial barriers to an      
astonishing  extent were broken down2   
the world1 at least the educated world  
of the cities1 was united by the bonds  
of a common language1 and  finally by a 
common political control4 ,the common   
language was the  ,koin1 the modified   
form of the ,attic dialect of ,greek1   
which became  the vehicle of a          
world-civilization4 ,the common         
political control  was that of the      
,roman ,empire4 ,on account of the union
 of these two  factors1                 
inter-communication between various     
nations and races  was safe and easy2   
the nations were united both in trade   
and in  intellectual activity4    ,with 
the cosmopolitanism thus produced there 
went naturally a new  individualism1    
which extended into the religious       

sphere4 ,under  the city-state of       
ancient ,greece the individual was      
subordinated  to the life of the        
community4 ,but in the world-empire the 
control  of the state1 just because it  
was broader1 was at the same time       
looser4 ,patriotism no longer engrossed 
the thoughts of men4 ,it was  impossible
 for a subject of a great empire to     
identify himself with  the life of the  
empire so completely as the free        
,athenian citizen of  the age of        
,pericles had identified himself with   
the glories of his  native city4 ,thus  
the satisfactions which in that earlier 
period had  been sought in the life of  
the state1 including the state-religion1
  were in the ,hellenistic age sought   
rather in individual religious          
practice4    ,the ancient religions of  
the city-state did indeed find a        
successor  which was adapted to the     
changed condition4 ,that successor was  
the worship of the ,emperors4 ,the      
worship of the ,emperors was more  than 

a mere form of flattery4 ,it expressed a
 general gratitude  for the reign of    
peace which was introduced by ,augustus1
 and it  had its roots1 not only in     
,greek religion1 but also1 and far more 
fundamentally1 in the religions of the  
,east4 ,the worship of the  rulers was  
firmly established in the kingdoms into 
which ,alexander's  empire was divided1 
and from there it was transmitted very  
naturally  to the new and greater empire
 of ,rome4 ,very naturally it became a  
dangerous enemy of the ,christian       
,church2 for the refusal of the         
,christians to worship the ,emperor     
seemed inexplicable to an age of        
polytheism1 and gave rise to the charge 
of political disloyalty4  ,at first1    
however1 and so during the period of    
,paul's missionary  journeys1 the       
,church shared more or less in the      
special privileges  which were granted  
to the ,jews4 ,christianity at first    
seemed to be  a variety of ,judaism1 and
 ,judaism in ,roman practice was a      

religio  licita4    ,but the worship of 
the ,emperors1 important as it was1 was 
not  practised in any exclusive way2 it 
did not at all exclude the  worship of  
other gods4 ,it remains true1 therefore1
 that in the  ,hellenistic age1 far more
 than under the ancient ,greek          
city-state1  there was room for         
individual choice in religious practice4
    ,it is not surprising that such an  
age was an age of religious  propaganda4
 ,since religion was no longer an affair
 of the nation  as such1 but addressed  
itself to men as men1 free scope was    
offered  for the extension to the whole 
world of religions which originally  had
 been national in character4 ,the golden
 age of such religious  propaganda1 it  
is true1 did not begin until the second 
century2 and  that fact is of very great
 importance in dealing with certain     
modern  theories of dependence so far as
 ,pauline ,christianity is concerned4   
,nevertheless the cosmopolitanizing of  
national religions had begun  to some   

extent in an early period and was       
rendered natural by the  entire         
character of the ,hellenistic age4 ,even
 before the fall of the  ,greek         
city-state1 little communities of the   
worshipers of eastern  gods had         
established themselves here and there in
 ,greece2 and in  other parts of the    
world the barriers against religious    
propaganda  were even less effective4   
,in the ,hellenistic age such barriers  
were  almost everywhere broken down4    
,when any religion ceased to be an      
affair of the nation1 when it could no  
longer count on the devotion  of the    
citizens or subjects as such1 it was    
obliged1 if it desired  to subsist1 to  
seek its devotees through an appeal to  
the free  choice of individuals4        
,this religious propaganda1 however1 was
 not carried on in any  exclusive way2  
the adoption of one god did not mean the
 abandonment  of another4 ,on the       
contrary1 the ,hellenistic age was the  
age of  syncretism par excellence4 ,gods

 of different nations1 originally  quite
 distinct1 were identified almost as a  
matter of course4 ,one  example of such 
identification has already been noted2  
at an early  time the gods of ,rome were
 identified with those of ,greece4 ,but 
in the later portion of the ,hellenistic
 age the process went on  in more       
wholesale fashion4 ,and it was sometimes
 justified by the  far-reaching theory  
that the gods of different nations were 
merely  different names of one great    
divinity4 ,this theory received classic 
expression in the words of the goddess  
,isis which are contained in  the       
,metamorphoses of ,apuleius3 ,for the   
,phrygians that are the  first of all   
men call me the ,mother of the gods at  
,pessinus2 the  ,athenians1 which are   
sprung from their own soil1 ,cecropian  
,minerva2  the ,cyprians1 which are girt
 about by the sea1 ,paphian ,venus2 the 
,cretans which bear arrows1 ,dictynnian 
,diana2 the ,sicilians1 which  speak    
three tongues1 infernal ,proserpine2 the

 ,eleusians their  ancient goddess      
,ceres2 some ,juno1 other ,bellona1     
other ,hecate1  other ,rhamnusia1 and   
principally both sort of the ,ethiopians
 which  dwell in the ,orient and are    
enlightened by the morning rays of the  
sun1 and the ,egyptians1 which are      
excellent in all kind of ancient        
doctrine1 and by their proper ceremonies
 accustom to worship me1 do  call me by 
my true name1 ,queen ,isis4#acf         
#acf ,apuleius1 ,metam4 xi4 #e1         
,addington's translation revised by     
,gaselee1 in ,apuleius1 ,the ,golden    
,ass1 in the ,the ,loeb ,classical      
,library1 p4 #edg4    ,but what is      
perhaps the most important feature of   
the religion of  the ,hellenistic age   
has not yet been mentioned4 ,it is found
 in  the widespread desire for          
redemption4 ,in the golden age of       
,greece  men had been satisfied with the
 world4 ,who could engage in gloomy     
questionings1 who could face the        
underlying problem of evil1 when  it was

 possible to listen with keen           
appreciation to an ode of  ,pindar or to
 a tragedy of schylus8 ,the ,greek      
tragic poets1 it is  true1 present in   
terrible fashion the sterner facts of   
life4 ,but  the glorious beauty of the  
presentation itself produces a kind of  
satisfaction4 ,in the age of ,pericles1 
life was rich and full2 for  the        
,athenian citizen it was a joy to live4 
,the thought of another  world was not  
needed2 this world was large and rich   
enough4 ,joyous  development of existing
 human faculties was1 in the golden age 
of  ,greece1 the chief end of man4      
,but the glorious achievements of the   
,greek genius were followed by          
lamentable failure4 ,there was failure  
in political life4 ,despite the         
political genius of ,athenian statesmen1
 ,athens soon lay prostrate1  first     
before her sister states and then before
 the ,macedonian  conqueror4 ,there was 
failure in intellectual life4 ,the      
glorious  achievements of ,athenian art 

were followed by a period of decline4   
,poets and sculptors had to find their  
inspiration in imitation of  the past4  
,human nature1 once so proud1 was       
obliged to confess its  inadequacy2 the 
,hellenistic age was characterized by   
what ,gilbert  ,murray1 borrowing a     
phrase of ,j4 ,b4 ,bury1 calls a failure
 of  nerve4#acg      #acg ,gilbert      
,murray1 ,four ,stages of ,greek        
,religion1 #aiab1 pp4 #h1    #ajc-aed4  
,compare1 however1 ,rohde 7op4 cit41 ii1
 pp4 #bih-cjj71 who    calls attention  
to an opposite aspect of the            
,hellenistic age4    ,this failure of   
nerve found expression1 in the religious
 sphere1  in the longing for redemption4
 ,the world was found not to be so      
happy a place as had been supposed1 and 
human nature was obliged  to seek help  
from outside4 ,thus arose the desire for
 salvation4  ,the characteristic gods of
 the ,hellenistic age are in some sort  
saviour-gods--gods who could give help  
in the miseries of life4  ,asclepius    

finally became more important than      
,zeus4 ,dissatisfied  with the world of 
sense1 men turned their thoughts to     
another world2  dissatisfied with the   
achievements of human nature1 they      
sought  communion with higher powers4   
,opinions may differ as to the value of 
this development4 ,to the  humanist of  
all ages1 it will seem to be a calamity4
 ,from the  glories of ,pindar to the   
morbid practices of the ,hellenistic    
mysteries1 how great a fall6 ,but there 
is another way of regarding  the change4
 ,possibly the achievements of ancient  
,greece1 glorious as  they were1 had    
been built upon an insecure foundation4 
,scrutiny of  the foundation was no     
doubt painful1 and it dulled the        
enthusiasm  of the architects4 ,but     
perhaps it was necessary and certainly  
it  was inevitable4 ,perhaps also it    
might become a step toward some  higher 
humanism4 ,the ,greek joy of living was 
founded upon a certain  ruthlessness    
toward human misery1 a certain          

indifference toward  moral problems4    
,such a joy could not be permanent4 ,but
 how would  it be if the underlying     
problem could be faced1 instead of being
  ignored8 ,how would it be if human    
nature could be founded upon some       
secure rock1 in order that then the     
architect might start to build  once    
more1 and build1 this time1 with a      
conscience void of offense8  ,such is   
the ,christian ideal1 the ideal of a    
loftier humanism--a  humanism as rich   
and as joyful as the humanism of        
,greece1 but a  humanism founded upon   
the grace of ,god4    ,but however the  
failure of nerve which appears in the   
,hellenistic  age be appreciated by the 
student of the philosophy of history1   
the fact at least cannot be ignored4    
,the ,hellenistic age was  characterized
 by a widespread longing for            
redemption--a widespread  longing for an
 escape from the present world of sense 
to some higher  and better country4     
,such longing was not satisfied by the  

ancient  religion of ,greece4 ,it caused
 men1 therefore1 to become seekers      
after new gods4    ,but what was the    
attitude of philosophy8 ,philosophy had 
contributed  to the decline of the      
ancient gods4 ,had it been equally      
successful  on the positive side8 ,had  
it been able to fill the void which its 
questionings had produced4 ,the answer  
on the whole must be rendered  in the   
negative4 ,on the whole1 it must be said
 that ,greek philosophy  was            
unsuccessful in its efforts to solve the
 riddle of the universe4  ,the effort   
which it made was indeed imposing4      
,plato in particular  endeavored to     
satisfy the deepest longings of the     
human soul2 he  attempted to provide an 
escape from the world of sense to the   
higher world of ideas4 ,but the way of  
escape was open at best only  to the few
 philosophical souls2 the generality of 
men were left  hopeless and helpless in 
the shadow-existence of the cave4 ,and  
even  the philosophers were not long    

satisfied with the ,platonic solution4  
,the philosophy of the ,hellenistic age 
was either openly skeptical or          
materialistic1 as is the case1 for      
example1 with ,epicureanism1 or  at any 
rate it abandoned the great theoretical 
questions and busied  itself chiefly    
with practical affairs4 ,epicureans and 
,stoics and  ,cynics were all interested
 chiefly1 not in ontology or            
epistemology1  but in ethics4 ,at this  
point the first century was like the    
twentieth4 ,the distrust of theory1 the 
depreciation of theology1  the exclusive
 interest in social and practical       
questions--these  tendencies appear now 
as they appeared in the ,hellenistic    
age4 ,and  now as well as then they are 
marks of intellectual decadence4    ,but
 if the philosophy of the ,hellenistic  
age offered no satisfactory  solution of
 the riddle of the universe and no      
satisfaction for the  deepest longings  
of the soul1 it presented1 on the other 
hand1 no  effective opposition to the   

religious current of the time4 ,it had  
helped bring about that downfall of the 
,olympic gods1 that sad  neglect of     
,zeus and his altars which is described 
by ,lucian in his  wonderfully modern   
satires4 ,but it was not able to check  
the rising  power of the eastern        
religions4 ,indeed it entered into a    
curious  alliance with the invaders4 ,as
 early as the first century before      
,christ1 ,posidonius seems to have      
introduced an element of oriental       
mysticism into the philosophy of the    
,stoics1 and in the succeeding          
centuries the process went on apace4    
,the climax was reached1 at the  close  
of pagan antiquity1 in that curious     
mixture of philosophy and  charlatanism 
which is found in the neo-,platonic     
writers4    ,the philosophy of the      
,hellenistic age1 with its intense      
interest in  questions of conduct1      
constitutes1 indeed1 an important       
chapter in  the history of the human    
race1 and can point to certain          

noteworthy  achievements4 ,the ,stoics1 
for example1 enunciated the great       
principle of human brotherhood2 they    
made use of the cosmopolitanism  and    
individualism of the ,hellenistic age in
 order to arouse a new  interest in man 
as man4 ,even the slaves1 who in the    
theory of an  ,aristotle had been       
treated as chattels1 began to be looked 
upon here  and there as members of a    
great human family4 ,men of every race  
and  of every social grade came to be   
the object of a true humanitarian       
interest4    ,but the humanitarian      
efforts of ,stoicism1 though proceeding 
from an  exalted theory of the worth of 
man as man1 proved to be powerless4     
,the dynamic somehow was lacking4       
,despite the teaching of ,seneca  and   
,marcus ,aurelius1 despite the          
beginnings of true humanitarian  effort 
here and there1 the later ,empire with  
its cruel gladiatorial  shows and its   
heartless social system was sinking into
 the slough  of savagery4 ,what         

,stoicism was unable to do1             
,christianity to some  extent at least  
accomplished4 ,the ideal of             
,christianity was not  the mere ideal of
 a human brotherhood4 ,pure             
humanitarianism1 the  notion of the     
brotherhood of man1 as that phrase is   
usually  understood1 is ,stoic rather   
than ,christian4 ,christianity did make 
its appeal to all men2 it won many of   
its first adherents from  the depths of 
slavery4 ,it did inculcate charity      
toward all men  whether ,christians or  
not4 ,and it enunciated with an         
unheard-of  seriousness the doctrine    
that all classes of men1 wise and       
unwise1  bond and free1 are of equal    
worth4 ,but the equality was not found  
in the common possession of human       
nature4 ,it was found1 instead1  in a   
common connection with ,jesus ,christ4  
,there can be neither  ,jew nor ,greek1 
there can be neither bond nor free1     
there can be  no male and female--so far
 the words of ,paul can find analogies  

7faint analogies1 it is true7 in the    
,stoic writers4 ,but the ,pauline       
grounding of the unity here enunciated  
is the very antithesis of  all mere     
humanitarianism both ancient and        
modern--,for ye are all  one person1    
says ,paul1 in ,christ ,jesus4          
,christianity did not  reveal the fact  
that all men were brothers4 ,indeed it  
revealed the  contrary4 ,but it offered 
to make all men brothers by bringing    
them  into saving connection with       
,christ4    ,the above sketch of the    
characteristics of the ,hellenistic age 
has  been quite inadequate4 ,and even a 
fuller presentation could hardly  do    
justice to the complexity of the life of
 that time4 ,but perhaps  some common   
misconceptions have been corrected4 ,the
 pagan world at  the time when ,paul set
 sail from ,seleucia on his first       
missionary  journey was not altogether  
without religion4 ,even the ancient     
polytheism was by no means altogether   
dead4 ,it was rather a day of  religious

 unrest4 ,the old faiths had been       
shaken1 but they were  making room for  
the new4 ,the ,orontes1 to use the      
figure of ,juvenal1  was soon to empty  
into the ,tiber4 ,the flow of eastern   
superstition  and eastern mystical      
religion was soon to spread over the    
whole  world4    ,but what were the     
eastern religions which in the second   
century  after ,christ1 if not before1  
entered upon their triumphal march      
toward the west8#ach ,they were of      
diverse origin and diverse  character4  
,but one feature was common to a number 
of the most  important of them4 ,those  
eastern religions which became most     
influential in the later ,roman ,empire 
were mystery religions--that  is1 they  
had connected with them secret rites    
which were thought  to afford special   
blessing to the initiates4 ,the         
mysteries did not  indeed constitute the
 whole of the worship of the eastern    
gods4 ,side  by side with the mysteries 
were to be found public cults to which  

every one was admitted4 ,but the        
mysteries are of special interest1      
because it was they which satisfied most
 fully the longing of the  ,hellenistic 
age for redemption1 for salvation1 for  
the attainment  of a higher nature4     
#ach ,the sketch which follows is       
indebted especially to ,cumont1    ,les 
religions orientales dans le paganisme  
romain1 #b;ime d41 #aiji    7,english   
translation1 ,the ,oriental ,religions  
in ,roman ,paganism1    #aiaa74    ,it  
will be well1 therefore1 to single out  
for special mention the  chief of the   
mystery religions--those eastern        
religions which  although they were by  
no means altogether secret did have     
mysteries  connected with them4    ,the 
first of these religions to be          
introduced into ,rome was  the religion 
of the ,phrygian ,cybele1 the ,great    
,mother of the  ,gods4#aci ,in #bjd     
,b4,c41 in the dark days of the         
,carthaginian  invasion1 the black      
meteoric stone of ,pessinus was brought1

 by  command of an oracle1 to ,rome4    
,with the sacred stone came the cult4   
,but ,rome was not yet ready for the    
barbaric worship of the ,phrygian       
goddess4 ,for several hundred years the 
cult of ,cybele was kept  carefully     
isolated from the life of the ,roman    
people4 ,the foreign  rites were        
supported by the authority of the state1
 but they were  conducted altogether by 
a foreign priesthood2 no ,roman citizen 
was allowed to participate in them4 ,it 
was not until the reign of  ,claudius   
7#da-ed ,a4,d47 that the barrier was    
finally broken down4      #aci ,for the 
religion of ,cybele and ,attis1 see     
,showerman1 ,the    ,great ,mother of   
the ,gods1 #aija2 ,hepding1 ,attis1     
#aijc4    ,the myth of ,cybele is       
narrated in various forms4 ,according to
 the  most characteristic form1 the     
youthful ,attis1 beloved by ,cybele1  is
 struck with madness by the jealous     
goddess1 deprives himself  of his       
virility1 dies through his own mad act1 

and is mourned by  the goddess4 ,the    
myth contains no account of a           
resurrection2 all  that ,cybele is able 
to obtain is that the body of ,attis    
should be  preserved1 that his hair     
should continue to grow1 and that his   
little finger should move4    ,the cult 
was more stable than the myth4 ,no      
doubt1 indeed1 even the  cult           
experienced important changes in the    
course of the centuries4  ,at the       
beginning1 according to ,hepding and    
,cumont1 ,cybele was  a goddess of the  
mountain wilds1 whose worship was       
similar in  important respects to that  
of ,dionysus4 ,with ,cybele ,attis was  
associated at an early time4 ,the       
,phrygian worship of ,cybele and  ,attis
 was always of a wild1 orgiastic        
character1 and the frenzy  of the       
worshipers culminated even in the act of
 self-mutilation4  ,thus the            
eunuch-priests of ,cybele1 the ,galli1  
became a well-known  feature of the life
 of the ,empire4 ,but the ,phrygian cult

 of ,cybele  and ,attis cannot be       
reconstructed by any means in detail2   
extensive  information has been         
preserved only about the worship as it  
was  carried on at ,rome4 ,and even with
 regard to the ,roman cult1 the  sources
 of information are to a very           
considerable extent late4 ,it  is not   
certain1 therefore1 that the great      
spring festival of ,attis1  as it was   
celebrated in the last period of the    
,roman ,empire1 was an  unmodified      
reproduction of the original ,phrygian  
rites4    ,the ,roman festival was      
conducted as follows3#adj ,on ,march    
#ae1 there  was a preliminary festival4 
,on ,march #bb1 the sacred pine-tree was
  felled and carried in solemn          
procession by the ,dendrophori into  the
 temple of ,cybele4 ,the pine-tree      
appears in the myth as the tree  under  
which ,attis committed his act of       
self-mutilation4 ,in the cult1  the     
felling of the tree is thought by modern
 scholars to represent  the death of the

 god4 ,hence the mourning of the        
worshipers was  connected with the tree4
 ,march #bd was called the day of blood2
  on this day the mourning for the dead 
,attis reached its climax4  ,the ,galli 
chastised themselves with scourges and  
cut themselves  with knives--all to the 
wild music of the drums and cymbals     
which  were connected especially with   
the worship of the ,phrygian ,mother4   
,on this day also1 according to         
,hepding's conjecture1 the new  ,galli  
dedicated themselves to the service of  
the goddess by the  act of              
self-mutilation4 ,finally1 the          
resurrection or epiphany of  the god    
,attis was celebrated4 ,this took place 
perhaps during the  night between ,march
 #bd and ,march #be4 ,but ,hepding      
admits that the  time is not directly   
attested4 ,it is also only conjecture   
when a  famous passage of ,firmicus     
,maternus 7fourth century after ,christ7
  is applied to the worship of ,attis   
and to this part of it4#ada ,but  the   

conjecture may well be correct4         
,firmicus ,maternus#adb describes  a    
festival in which the figure of a god   
rests upon a bier and is  lamented1 and 
then a light is brought in and the      
priest exclaims1  ,be of good courage1  
ye initiates1 since the god is saved2   
for  to us there shall be salvation out 
of troubles4#adc ,apparently  the       
resurrection of the god is here regarded
 as the cause of the  salvation of the  
worshipers2 the worshipers share in the 
fortunes  of the god4 ,at any rate1     
,march #be in the ,roman ,attis festival
 was  the ,hilaria1 a day of rejoicing4 
,on this day1 the resurrection of  the  
god was celebrated4 ,march #bf was a day
 of rest2 and finally1  on ,march #bg1  
there was a solemn washing of the sacred
 images and  emblems4      #adj ,see    
,hepding1 op4 cit41 pp4 #adg-agf4       
#ada ,loisy 7,les mystres paens et le   
mystre chrtien1 #aiaj1 p4    #ajd7      
prefers to attach the passage to ,osiris
 rather than to ,attis4      #adb ,see  

,hepding1 op4 cit41 pp4 #aff1 #afg4     
#adc ,firmicus ,maternus1 ,de error1    
prof4 rel41 xxii 7ed4 ,ziegler1         
#aijg73                           4     
,as thus described1 the worship of      
,cybele and ,attis was1 for the  most   
part at least1 public4 ,but there were  
also mysteries connected  with the same 
two gods4 ,these mysteries apparently   
were practised  in the ,east before the 
cult was brought to ,rome4 ,but the     
eastern  form of their celebration is   
quite obscure1 and even about the       
,roman form very little is known4       
,connected with the mysteries was  some 
sort of sacred meal4#add ,firmicus      
,maternus has preserved the  formula3 ,i
 have eaten from the drum2 ,i have drunk
 from the cymbal2  ,i have become an    
initiate of ,attis4#ade ,and ,clement of
 ,alexandria  7about #bjj ,a4 ,d47 also 
connected a similar formula with the    
,phrygian mysteries3 ,i ate from the    
drum2 ,i drank from the cymbal2  ,i     
carried the 'kernos'2 ,i stole into the 

bridal chamber4#adf  ,the significance  
of this ritual eating and drinking is   
not clear4  ,certainly it would be rash 
to find in it the notion of new birth or
  sacramental union with the divine     
nature4 ,hepding suggests that it  meant
 rather the entrance of the initiate    
into the circle of the  table-companions
 of the god4      #add ,see ,hepding1   
op4 cit41 pp4 #ahd-aij4      #ade       
,firmicus ,maternus1 op4 cit41 xviii3   
1      1  4      #adf ,clem4 ,al41      
,protrepticus1 ii4 #ae 7ed4 ,sthlin1    
#aije73              4    ,the actual   
initiation is even more obscure in the  
,attis mysteries  than it is in those of
 ,eleusis2 ,hepding admits that his     
reconstruction of the details of the    
mysteries is based largely on           
conjecture4 ,possibly in the formula    
quoted above from ,clement of           
,alexandria1 the words1 ,i stole into   
the bridal chamber1 indicate  that there
 was some sort of representation of a   
sacred marriage2  but other             

interpretations of the ,greek words are 
possible4 ,hepding  suggests that the   
candidate entered into the grotto1      
descended into  a ditch within the      
grotto1 listened to lamentations for the
 dead  god1 received a blood-bath1 then 
saw a wonderful light1 and heard  the   
joyful words quoted above3 ,be of good  
courage1 ye initiates1  since the god is
 saved2 for to us shall there be        
salvation out of  troubles1 and finally 
that the candidate arose out of the     
ditch as  a new man 7reborn for         
eternity7 or rather as a being          
identified  with the god4#adg      #adg 
,hepding1 op4 cit41 pp4 #aif;ff4        
,according to this reconstruction1 the  
initiation represented the  death and   
the new birth of the candidate4 ,but the
 reconstruction is  exceedingly         
doubtful1 and some of the most important
 features of  it are attested in        
connection with the ,attis mysteries if 
at all  only in very late sources4      
,hepding is particularly careful to     

admit  that there is no direct          
documentary evidence for connecting the 
blood-bath with the ,march festival4    
,this blood-bath1 which is called the   
taurobolium1 requires special           
attention4 ,the one who received it     
descended into a pit over  which a      
lattice-work was placed4 ,a bull was    
slaughtered above the  lattice-work1 and
 the blood was allowed to run through   
into the pit1  where the recipient let  
it saturate his clothing and even enter 
his nose and mouth and ears4 ,the result
 was that the recipient was  reborn     
forever1 or else reborn for a period of 
twenty years1  after which the rite had 
to be repeated4 ,the taurobolium is     
thought  to have signified a death to   
the old life and a new birth into a     
higher1 divine existence4 ,but it is not
 perfectly clear that it had  that      
significance in the ,east and in the    
early period4 ,according to  ,hepding1  
the taurobolium was in the early period 
a mere sacrifice1  and the first man who

 is said to have received it in the     
sense just  described was the ,emperor  
,heliogabalus 7third century after      
,christ74  ,other scholars refuse to    
accept ,hepding's distinction between an
  earlier and a later form of the rite4 
,but the matter is at least  obscure1   
and it would be exceedingly rash to     
attribute pre-,christian  origin to the 
developed taurobolium as it appears in  
fourth-century  sources4 ,indeed1 there 
seems to be no mention of any kind of   
taurobolium whatever before the second  
century1#adh and ,hepding may  be       
correct in suggesting that possibly the 
fourth-century practice  was influenced 
by the ,christian doctrine of the blood 
of ,christ4#adi      #adh ,showerman1   
op4 cit41 p4 #bhj4      #adi ,hepding1  
op4 cit41 p4 #bjj1 ,anm4 #g4    ,no less
 important than the religion of ,cybele 
and ,attis was the  ,greco-,egyptian    
religion of ,isis and ,osiris4 ,isis and
 ,osiris are both  ancient ,egyptian    
gods1 whose worship1 in modified form1  

was carried  over first into the ,greek 
kingdom of the ,ptolemies1 and thence   
into  the remotest bounds of the ,roman 
,empire4 ,the myth which concerns  these
 gods is reported at length in          
,plutarch's treatise1 ,concerning  ,isis
 and ,osiris4 ,briefly it is as follows3
 ,osiris1 the brother  and husband of   
,isis1 after ruling in a beneficent     
manner over the  ,egyptians1 is plotted 
against by his brother ,typhon4 ,finally
 ,typhon  makes a chest and promises to 
give it to any one who exactly fits  it4
 ,osiris enters the chest1 which is then
 closed by ,typhon and  thrown into the 
,nile4 ,after a search1 ,isis finds the 
chest at ,byblos  on the coast of       
,phnicia1 and brings it back to ,egypt4 
,but ,typhon  succeeds in getting       
possession of the body of ,osiris and   
cuts it up  into fourteen parts1 which  
are scattered through ,egypt4 ,isis goes
  about collecting the parts4 ,osiris   
becomes king of the nether world1  and  
helps his son ,horus to gain a victory  

over ,typhon4    ,the worship of ,isis  
and ,osiris was prominent in ancient    
,egyptian  religion long before the     
entrance of ,greek influence4 ,osiris   
was  regarded as the ruler over the     
dead1 and as such was naturally very    
important in a religion in which supreme
 attention was given to a  future life4 
,but with the establishment of the      
,ptolemaic kingdom at  about #cjj ,b4   
,c41 there was an important modification
 of the worship4  ,a new god1 ,serapis1 
was introduced1 and was closely         
identified with  ,osiris4 ,the origin of
 the name ,serapis has been the subject 
of much  discussion and is still        
obscure4 ,but one motive for the        
introduction  of the new divinity 7or of
 the new name for an old divinity7 is   
perfectly plain4 ,ptolemy ,i desired to 
unify the ,egyptian and the  ,greek     
elements in his kingdom by providing a  
cult which would be  acceptable to both 
and at the same time intensely loyal to 
the  crown4 ,the result was the         

,greco-,egyptian cult of ,serapis       
7,osiris7  and ,isis4 ,here is to be    
found1 then1 the remarkable phenomenon  
of  a religion deliberately established 
for political reasons1 which1  despite  
its artificial origin1 became enormously
 successful4 ,of  course1 the success   
was obtained only by a skillful use of  
existing  beliefs1 which had been       
hallowed in ,egyptian usage from time   
immemorial1 and by a skillful clothing  
of those beliefs in forms  acceptable to
 the ,greek element in the population4  
,the religion of ,isis and ,serapis was1
 as ,cumont observes1 entirely  devoid  
of any established system of theology or
 any very lofty  ethics4 ,it was        
effective rather on account of its      
gorgeous ritual1  which was handed down 
from generation to generation with      
meticulous  accuracy1 and on account of 
the assurance which it gave of a blessed
  immortality1 the worshipers being     
conceived of as sharing in the          
resuscitation which ,osiris had         

obtained4 ,the worship was at first     
repulsive to ,roman ideals of gravity1  
but effected an official  entrance into 
the city in the reign of ,caligula      
7#cg-da ,a4 ,d474  ,in the second and   
third centuries it was extended over the
 whole  ,empire4 ,in alliance with the  
religion of ,mithras it became finally  
perhaps the most serious rival of       
,christianity4    ,the cult was partly  
public and partly private4 ,prominent in
 the  public worship were the solemn    
opening of the temple of ,isis in  the  
morning and the solemn closing in the   
afternoon4 ,elaborate  care was taken of
 the images of the gods--the gods being 
regarded  as dependent upon human       
ministrations4 ,besides the rites that  
were  conducted daily1 there were       
special festivals like the spring       
festival of the ship of ,isis which is  
brilliantly described by  ,apuleius4    
,but it is the mysteries which arouse   
the greatest interest1  especially      
because of the precious source of       

information about  them which is found  
in the eleventh book of the             
,metamorphoses of  ,apuleius 7second    
century after ,christ74 ,in this book1  
although the  secrets of the mysteries  
themselves are of course not revealed1  
,apuleius has given a more complete and 
orderly account of the  events connected
 with an initiation than is to be found 
anywhere  else in ancient literature4   
,the hero ,lucius is represented first  
as waiting for a summons from the       
goddess ,isis1 which comes with         
miraculous coincidence independently to 
him and to the priest who  is to        
officiate in his initiation4 ,then      
,lucius is taken into the  temple and   
made acquainted with certain mysterious 
books1 and also  washes his body at the 
nearest baths4 ,this washing has as     
little  as possible the appearance of a 
sacrament2 evidently it was not         
intended to produce regeneration or     
anything of the sort4#aej ,the  purpose 
of it seems to have been cleanliness1   

which was naturally  regarded as a      
preparation for the holy rite that was  
to follow4  ,there follows a ten days'  
period of fasting1 after which the day  
of  initiation arrives4 ,lucius is taken
 into the most secret place of  the     
temple4 ,of what happens there he speaks
 with the utmost reserve4  ,he says1    
however3 ,i came to the limits of death1
 and having trod  the threshold of      
,proserpine and been borne through all  
the elements  ,i returned2 at midnight  
,i saw the sun shining with a bright    
light2 ,i  came into the presence of the
 upper and nether gods and adored them  
near at hand4#aea ,it is often supposed 
that these words indicate  some sort of 
mysterious drama or vision1 which marked
 the death  of the initiate1 his passage
 through the elements1 and his rising   
to a new life4 ,but certainly the matter
 is very obscure4 ,the next  morning    
,lucius is clothed with gorgeous robes1 
and is presented to  the gaze of the    
multitude4 ,apparently he is regarded as

 partaking  of the divine nature4 ,two  
other initiations of ,lucius are        
narrated1  one of them being an         
initiation into the mysteries of        
,osiris1 as  the first had been into the
 mysteries of ,isis4 ,but little is     
added  by the account of these later    
experiences1 and it has even been       
suggested that the multiplication of the
 initiations was due to the             
self-interest of the priests rather than
 to any real advantage for  the         
initiate4      #aej ,but compare        
,kennedy1 ,st4 ,paul and the            
,mystery-,religions1    #aiac1 p4 #bbi4 
#aea ,apuleius1 ,metam41 xi4 #bc 7ed4   
,van der ,vliet1 #ahig1 p4 #bgj73       
,accessi confinium mortis et calcato    
,proserpinae limine per omnia    vectus 
elementa remeavi2 nocte media vidi solem
 candido coruscantem    lumine2 deos    
inferos et deos superos accessi coram et
 adoravi de    proxumo4    ,similar in  
important respects to the ,egyptian     
,osiris was the ,adonis  of ,phnicia1   

who may therefore be mentioned in the   
present  connection1 even though little 
is known about mysteries connected  with
 his worship4 ,according to the         
well-known myth1 the youth  ,adonis1    
beloved by ,aphrodite1 was killed by a  
wild boar1 and then  bemoaned by the    
goddess4 ,the cult of ,adonis was found 
in various  places1 notably at ,byblos  
in ,phnicia1 where the death and        
resurrection of the god were celebrated4
 ,with regard to this double  festival1 
,lucian says in his treatise ,on the    
,syrian ,goddess3 ,they  the inhabitants
 of ,byblos assert that the legend about
 ,adonis  and the wild boar is true1 and
 that the facts occurred in their       
country1 and in memory of this calamity 
they beat their breasts  and wail every 
year1 and perform their secret ritual   
amid signs of  mourning through the     
whole countryside4 ,when they have      
finished  their mourning and wailing1   
they sacrifice in the first place to    
,adonis1 as to one who has departed this

 life3 after this they allege  that he  
is alive again1 and exhibit his effigy  
to the sky4#aeb ,the  wailing for       
,adonis at ,byblos is similar to what is
 narrated about  the worship of the     
,babylonian god ,tammuz4 ,even the ,old 
,testament  mentions in a noteworthy    
passage the women weeping for ,tammuz   
7,ezek4 viii4 #ad74 ,but the            
,tammuz-worship does not seem to have   
contained any celebration of a          
resurrection4      #aeb ,lucian1 ,de dea
 syria1 #f1 translation of ,garstang    
7,the    ,syrian ,goddess1 #aiac1 pp4   
#de;f474    ,attis1 ,osiris1 and ,adonis
 are alike in that all of them are      
apparently represented as dying and     
coming to life again4 ,they  are        
regarded by ,brckner#aec and many other 
modern scholars  as representing the    
widespread notion of a dying and rising 
saviour-god4 ,but it is perhaps worthy  
of note that the  resurrection of these 
gods is very different from what is     
meant  by that word in ,christian       

belief4 ,the myth of ,attis1 for        
example1  contains no mention of a      
resurrection2 though apparently the     
cult1  in which mourning is followed by 
gladness1 did presuppose some such      
notion4 ,in the myth of ,osiris1 also1  
there is nothing that could  be called  
resurrection2 after his passion the god 
becomes ruler1  not over the living1 but
 over the dead4 ,in ,lucian's           
description  of the worship of ,adonis  
at ,byblos1 there is perhaps as clear an
  account as is to be found anywhere of 
the celebration of the dying  and       
resuscitation of a god1 but even in this
 account there is not  strictly speaking
 a resurrection4 ,a tendency is found in
 certain  recent writers to exaggerate  
enormously the prevalence and the       
clarity of the pagan ideas about a dying
 and rising god4      #aec ,der         
sterbende und auferstehende             
,gottheiland1 #aijh4    ,according to a 
common opinion1 ,attis1 ,osiris1 and    
,adonis are  vegetation-gods2 their     

dying and resuscitation represent1 then1
  the annual withering and revival of   
vegetation4 ,this hypothesis  has       
attained general1 though not universal1 
acceptance4 ,certainly  the facts are   
very complex4 ,at any rate1 the         
celebration of the  principle of        
fecundity in nature was not of a purely 
agrarian  character1 but found          
expression also in the gross symbols and
  immoral practices which appear in     
connection with the gods just  mentioned
 at various points in the ancient world4
    ,the most important of the religions
 which have just been examined  had     
their rise in ,asia ,minor and in       
,egypt4 ,no less important1 at  least in
 the last period of pagan antiquity1 was
 the religious  influence of ,syria4    
,the ,syrian gods1 called ,baals        
7,lords71 were  not1 according to       
,cumont1 distinguished from one another 
by any  clearly defined characteristics4
 ,every locality had its own ,baal  and 
a female divinity as the ,baal's        

consort1 but the attributes of  these   
local gods were of the vaguest          
character4 ,the female divinity         
,atargatis1 whose temple at ,hierapolis 
is described by ,lucian1 and  the male  
divinity ,hadad1 of ,heliopolis1 are    
among the best-known of  the ,syrian    
gods4 ,the ,syrian worship was          
characterized by especially  immoral and
 revolting features1 but seems to have  
become ennobled by  the introduction of 
the ,babylonian worship of the heavenly 
bodies1  and thus contributed to the    
formation of the solar monotheism which 
was the final form assumed by the pagan 
religion of the ,empire  before the     
triumph of ,christianity4    ,in point  
of intrinsic worth1 the ,persian mystery
 religion of ,mithras  is easily        
superior to any of the religions which  
have thus far been  mentioned1 but it is
 of less importance than some of the    
others  for the purposes of the present 
investigation1 since it became          
influential in the ,roman ,empire only  

after the time of ,paul4 ,great  stress 
has indeed been laid upon the fact that 
,plutarch attests  the practice of      
,mithraic mysteries by the pirates whom 
,pompey  conquered in the middle of the 
first century before ,christ1 and  says 
furthermore that the ,mithraic rites    
begun by the pirates were  continued    
until the writer's own day4#aed ,the    
pirates practised  their rites at       
,olympus1 which is on the southern coast
 of ,asia  ,minor4 ,but the ,olympus    
which is meant is in ,lycia1 some three 
hundred miles from ,tarsus4 ,it is a    
mistake1 therefore1 to bring  the       
,mithraic mysteries of the pirates into 
any close geographical  connection with 
the boyhood home of ,paul4 ,against the 
hypothesis of  any dependence of ,paul  
upon the mysteries of ,mithras is to be 
placed  the authority of ,cumont1 the   
chief investigator in this field1 who   
says3 ,it is impossible to suppose that 
at that time the time of  ,paul there   
was an imitation of the ,mithraic       

mysteries1 which then  had not yet      
attained any importance4#aee ,attempts  
have often been  made to explain away   
this judgment of ,cumont1 but without   
success4  ,the progress of ,mithraism in
 the ,empire seems to have been due to  
definite political causes which were    
operative only after ,paul's day4       
#aed ,plutarch1 ,vita ,pompei1 #bd4     
#aee ,cumont1 op4 cit41 p4 xvi 7,english
 ,translation1 p4 xx74    ,the ,persian 
religion1 from which ,mithraism was     
descended1 was  superior to the others  
which have just been considered in its  
marked  ethical character4 ,it presented
 the doctrine of a mighty conflict      
between light and darkness1 between good
 and evil4 ,and ,mithraism  itself      
regarded religion under the figure of a 
warfare4 ,it appealed  especially to the
 soldiers1 and only men 7not women7 were
 admitted  to its mysteries4 ,there were
 seven grades of initiation1 each with  
its special name4 ,the highest grade was
 that of father4 ,the  ,mithras cult was

 always celebrated underground1 in      
chambers of very  limited extent4 ,there
 was a sacred meal1 consisting of bread 
and  water1 which ,justin ,martyr1 in   
the middle of the second century1       
regards as having been instituted       
through demoniac imitation of the       
,christian ,eucharist4#aef ,this        
religion of ,mithras finally became1    
with the religion of ,isis1 the most    
serious rival of ,christianity4  ,but at
 the time of ,paul it was without       
importance1 and could not  have exerted 
any influence upon the apostle4         
#aef ,justin ,martyr1 ,apol4 #ff4       
,but the religion of the ,hellenistic   
age was not limited to the  individual  
cults which have just been considered1  
and it is not  chiefly to the individual
 cults that recourse is had by those    
modern  scholars who would derive       
,paulinism from pagan sources4 ,mention 
has  already been made of the syncretism
 of the age2 various religions  were    
mingled in a limitless variety of       

combinations4 ,and there was  also a    
mingling of religion with philosophy4   
,it is in the manifold  products of this
 union between ,greek philosophy and    
oriental  religion that the genesis of  
,paulinism is now often being sought4   
,not oriental religion in its original  
state1 but oriental religion  already to
 some extent ,hellenized1 is thought to 
have produced the  characteristic       
features of the religion of ,paul4      
,the hypothesis is faced by one obvious 
difficulty4 ,the difficulty  appears in 
the late date of most of the sources of 
information4 ,in  order to reconstruct  
that ,hellenized oriental mysticism from
 which  the religion of ,paul is to be  
derived1 the investigator is obliged  to
 appeal to sources which are long       
subsequent to ,paul's day4 ,for         
example1 in reproducing the spiritual   
atmosphere in which ,paul is  supposed  
to have lived1 no testimony is more     
often evoked than the  words of         
,firmicus ,maternus1 ,be of good        

courage1 ye initiates1  since the god is
 saved2 for to us there shall be        
salvation out of  troubles4#aeg ,here1  
it is thought1 is to be found that      
connection  between the resurrection of 
the god and the salvation of the        
believers which appears in the ,pauline 
idea of dying and rising  with ,christ4 
,but the trouble is that ,firmicus      
,maternus lived in  the fourth century  
after ,christ1 three hundred years later
 than  ,paul4 ,with what right can an   
utterance of his be used in the         
reconstruction of pre-,christian        
paganism8 ,what would be thought1 by    
the same scholars who quote ,firmicus   
,maternus so confidently as a  witness  
to first-century paganism1 of a         
historian who should quote  a           
fourth-century ,christian writer as a   
witness to first-century  ,christianity8
      #aeg ,see above1 p4 #bbi1 with    
footnote #c4    ,this objection has been
 met by the modern school of comparative
  religion somewhat as follows4 ,in the 

first place1 it is said1  the           
post-,christian pagan usage which at any
 time may be under  investigation is    
plainly not influenced by ,christianity4
 ,but1 in  the second place1 it is too  
similar to ,christian usage for the     
similarity to be explained by mere      
coincidence4 ,therefore1 in  the third  
place1 since it is not dependent upon   
,christian usage1  ,christian usage must
 be dependent upon it1 and therefore    
despite its  late attestation it must   
have existed in pre-,christian times4   
,a little reflection will reveal the    
precarious character of this  reasoning4
 ,every step is uncertain4 ,in the first
 place1 it is often  by no means clear  
that the pagan usage has not been       
influenced by  ,christianity4 ,the      
,church did not long remain obscure2    
even early  in the second century1      
according to the testimony of ,pliny1 it
 was  causing the heathen temples to be 
deserted4 ,what is more likely than     
that in an age of syncretism the        

adherents of pagan religion should      
borrow weapons from so successful a     
rival8 ,it must be remembered  that the 
paganism of the ,hellenistic age had    
elevated syncretism  to a system2 it had
 absolutely no objection of principle   
against  receiving elements from every  
source4 ,in the ,christian ,church1 on  
the other hand1 there was a strong      
objection to such procedure2            
,christianity from the beginning was    
like ,judaism in being exclusive4  ,it  
regarded with the utmost abhorrence     
anything that was tainted  by a pagan   
origin4 ,this abhorrence1 at least in   
the early period1  more than            
overbalanced the fact that the          
,christians for the most  part had      
formerly been pagans1 so that it might  
be thought natural  for them to retain  
something of pagan belief4 ,conversion  
involved a  passionate renunciation of  
former beliefs4 ,such1 at any rate1 was 
clearly the kind of conversion that was 
required by ,paul4    ,in the second    

place1 the similarity between the pagan 
and the  ,christian usages is often     
enormously exaggerated2 sometimes  a    
superficial similarity of language masks
 the most profound  differences of      
underlying meaning4 ,illustrations will 
be given in  the latter part of the     
present chapter4    ,thus the conclusion
 is1 to say the least1 precarious4 ,it  
is by no  means so easy as is sometimes 
supposed to prove that a pagan usage    
attested only long after the time of    
,paul is really the source  of ,pauline 
teaching4 ,and it will not help to say  
that although  there is no direct       
dependence one way or the other yet the 
pagan  and the ,pauline teaching have a 
common source4 ,for to say that a  usage
 has a pagan source several centuries   
earlier than the time  at which the     
usage is first attested is really to    
assume the point  that is to be proved4 
,we are not here dealing with a question
 of  literary dependence1 where the     
unity of the books which are being      

compared is assumed4 ,in such a question
 the independence of the two  writers   
may be proved by the general comparison 
of the books2 it  may be shown1 in other
 words1 that if one author had used the 
other  author's work at all he would    
have had to use it a great deal more    
than as a matter of fact the similarity 
would indicate4 ,in such  cases1        
striking verbal similarity in one place 
may prove that both  books were         
dependent upon a common source4 ,but if 
a pagan usage  of the fourth century is 
similar to a ,christian usage1 the fact 
that in general the paganism of the     
fourth century is independent  of       
,christianity does not disprove         
dependence of paganism upon             
,christianity at this one point4    ,it 
is not surprising1 therefore1 that the  
reasoning just outlined is  usually     
supplemented by a further consideration4
 ,it is maintained1  namely1 that the   
mystic piety of paganism forms to some  
extent  a unit2 it was not a mere       

fortuitous collection of beliefs and    
practices1 but was like an enveloping   
spiritual atmosphere of which1  despite 
variations of humidity and temperature1 
the fundamental  composition was        
everywhere the same4 ,if1 therefore1 the
 presence  of this atmosphere of        
mystical piety can be established here  
and  there in sources of actually       
pre-,christian date1 the investigator   
has a right to determine the nature of  
the atmosphere in detail by  drawing    
upon later sources4 ,in other words1 the
 mystical religion  of the ,hellenistic 
age is reconstructed in detail by the   
use of  post-,christian sources1 and    
then 7the essential unity of the        
phenomenon being assumed7 the early date
 of this oriental mystical  religion is 
established by the scanty references in 
pre-,christian  times4 ,it is admitted1 
perhaps1 that the elements of oriental  
mysticism actually found in             
pre-,christian sources would not be     
sufficient to prove dependence of ,paul 

upon that type of religion2  but the    
elements found in later sources are     
thought to be so closely  allied to     
those which happen to have early        
attestation that they  too must be      
supposed to have been present in the    
early period1  and since they are       
similar to ,paulinism they must have    
exerted a  formative influence upon     
,paul's religion4 ,to put the matter    
briefly1  the nature of ,hellenized     
oriental religion is established by     
post-,pauline sources2 whereas the early
 origin of that religion is  established
 by the scanty pre-,christian           
references4    ,this procedure          
constitutes a curious reversal of the   
procedure which  is applied by the very 
same scholars to ,christianity4         
,christianity  is supposed to have      
undergone kaleidoscopic changes in the  
course  of a few years or even months1  
changes involving a transformation  of  
its inmost nature2 yet pagan religion is
 apparently thought to  have remained   

from age to age the same4 ,when ,paul1  
only a few years  after the origin of   
the ,church1 says that he received      
certain  fundamental elements in his    
religion1 the intimate connection of    
those elements with the rest of the     
,pauline system is not allowed  to      
establish the early origin of the whole2
 yet the paganism of  the third and     
fourth centuries is thought to have     
constituted  such a unity that the      
presence of certain elements of it in   
the  pre-,christian period is regarded  
as permitting the whole system to  be   
transplanted bodily to that early time4 
,of course1 the hypothesis which is now 
being examined is held  in many forms1  
and is being advocated with varying     
degrees of  caution4 ,some of its       
advocates might defend themselves       
against the  charge of transplanting    
post-,christian paganism bodily into the
  pre-,christian period4 ,they might    
point to special evidence with  regard  
to many details4 ,such evidence would   

have to be examined  in any complete    
investigation4 ,but the objection just  
raised1  despite possible answers to it 
in detail1 is not without validity4  ,it
 remains true1 despite all reservations1
 that adherents of the                  
comparative-religion school are entirely
 too impatient with  regard to questions
 of priority4 ,they are indeed very     
severe upon  those who raise such       
questions4 ,they do not like having the 
flow  of their thought checked by so    
homely a thing as a date4 ,but  dates   
sometimes have their importance4 ,for   
example1 the phrase1  reborn for        
eternity1 occurs in connection with the 
blood-bath  of the taurobolium4 ,how    
significant1 it might be said1 is this  
connection of regeneration with the     
shedding of blood6 ,how useful  as      
establishing the pagan origin of the    
,christian idea6 ,from the  confident   
way in which the phrase reborn for      
eternity is quoted  in discussions of   
the origin of ,christianity1 one would  

think that  its pre-,christian origin   
were established beyond peradventure4   
,it  may come as a shock1 therefore1 to 
readers of recent discussions to  be    
told that as a matter of fact the phrase
 does not appear until  the fourth      
century1 when ,christianity was taking  
its place as the  established religion  
of the ,roman world4 ,if there is any   
dependence1  it is certainly dependence 
of the taurobolium upon ,christianity1  
and  not of ,christianity upon the      
taurobolium4    ,the same lordly        
disregard of dates runs all through the 
modern  treatment of the history of     
religion in the ,new ,testament period4 
,it is particularly unfortunate in      
popular expositions4 ,when the  lay     
reader is overwhelmed by an imposing    
array of citations from  ,apuleius and  
from ,lucian1 to say nothing of         
,firmicus ,maternus and  fourth-century 
inscriptions1 and when these late       
citations are  confidently treated by   
men of undoubted learning as witnesses  

to  pre-,christian religion1 and when   
the procedure is rendered more          
plausible by occasional references to   
pre-,christian writers which  if looked 
up would be found to prove nothing at   
all1 and when there  is a careful       
avoidance of anything like temporal     
arrangement of the  material1 but       
citations derived from all countries and
 all ages  are brought together for the 
reconstruction of the environment  of   
,paul--under such treatment the lay     
reader often receives the  impression   
that something very important is being  
proved4 ,the  impression would be       
corrected by the mere introduction of a 
few  dates1 especially in view of the   
fact that oriental religion  undoubtedly
 entered upon a remarkable expansion    
shortly after the  close of the ,new    
,testament period1 so that conditions   
prevailing  after that expansion are by 
no means necessarily to be regarded as  
having existed before the expansion took
 place4    ,this criticism is here      

intended to be taken only in a          
provisional  way4 ,the justice of it can
 be tested only by a detailed           
examination  of the hypothesis against  
which the criticism is directed4        
,how1 then1 is the pre-,christian       
mystical religion of the ,hellenistic   
world to be reconstructed8 ,what sources
 are to be used8 ,some of  the sources  
have already been touched upon in the   
review of the  individual oriental      
cults4 ,and incidentally the            
unsatisfactory  character of some of    
these sources has already appeared4 ,but
 it is  now necessary to examine other  
sources which are not so definitely     
connected with any clearly defined cult4
    ,increasing attention has been paid 
in recent years to the complex  of      
writings which goes under the name of   
,hermes ,trismegistus4  ,these ,hermetic
 writings embrace not only a corpus of  
some fourteen  tractates which has been 
preserved in continuous ,greek          
manuscript  form1 but also fragments    

contained in the works of ,stobus and   
other  writers1 and finally the         
,asclepius attributed to ,apuleius4 ,it 
is  not usually maintained that the     
,hermetic literature was completed      
before about #cjj ,a4,d42 no one claims 
anything like pre-,christian  origin for
 the whole4 ,the individual elements of 
the literature--for  example1 the       
individual tractates of the ,hermetic   
corpus--are  usually regarded as having 
been produced at various times2 but no  
one of them is generally thought to have
 been written before the  beginning of  
the ,christian era4 ,with regard to the 
most important  tractate1 the           
,poimandres1 which stands at the        
beginning of the  corpus1 opinions      
differ somewhat4 ,j4 ,kroll1 for        
example1 the author  of the leading     
monograph on the ,hermetic writings1    
regards the  ,poimandres as the latest  
of the tractates in the corpus1 and as  
having appeared not before the time of  
,numenius 7second half of the  second   

century72#aeh whereas ,zielinski regards
 it as the earliest  writing of the     
corpus4#aei ,by an ingenious argument1  
,reitzenstein  attempts to prove that   
the ,christian ,shepherd of ,hermes     
7middle  of the second century7 is      
dependent upon an original form of the  
,poimandres4#afj ,but his argument has  
not obtained any general  consent4 ,it  
is impossible to push the material of   
the ,poimandres  back into the first    
century--certainly impossible by any    
treatment  of literary relationships4   
#aeh ,j4 ,kroll1 ,die ,lehren des       
,hermes ,trismegistos1 #aiad1 in        
,beitrge zur ,geschichte der            
,philosophie des ,mittelalters1 xii4    
#b-d1 pp4 #chh1 #chi4      #aei         
,zielinski1 ,hermes und die ,hermetik1  
in ,archiv fr    ,religionswissenschaft1
 viii1 #aije1 p4 #cbc4      #afj        
,reitzenstein1 ,poimandres1 #aijd1 pp4  
#aj-ac4    ,with regard to the origin of
 the ideas in the ,hermetic writings1   
there is considerable difference of     

opinion4 ,reitzenstein allows  a large  
place to ,egyptian and ,persian         
elements2 other scholars  emphasize     
rather the influence of ,greek          
philosophy1 which of course  is in turn 
thought to have been modified by its    
contact with  oriental religion4 ,j4    
,kroll1#afa ,w4 ,kroll1#afb             
,reitzenstein1#afc  and others deny     
emphatically the presence of any        
considerable  ,christian influence in   
,hermes2 but at this point ,heinrici1   
after  particularly careful researches1 
differs from the customary  view4#afd   
,windisch is enough impressed by        
,heinrici's arguments  to confess that  
,christian literature may have          
influenced the  present form of the     
,hermetic writings here and there1 but  
insists  that the ,christian influence  
upon ,hermes is altogether trifling     
compared to the influence upon primitive
 ,christianity of the type  of religion 
of which ,hermes is an example4#afe ,the
 true state of  the case1 according to  

,windisch1 is probably that             
,christianity first  received from      
oriental religion the fundamental ideas1
 and then  gave back to oriental        
religion as represented by ,hermes      
certain  forms of expression in which   
those ideas had been clothed4 ,at the   
same time ,windisch urges careful       
attention to ,heinrici's argument  for  
,christian influence upon ,hermes for   
three reasons3 7#a7 all  ,hermetic      
writings are later than the ,new        
,testament period1 7#b7 the  ,hermetic  
writings are admittedly influenced by   
,judaism1 7#c7 at  least the latest     
stratum in the ,hermetic writings has   
admittedly  passed through the          
,christian sphere4 ,these admissions1   
coming  from one who is very friendly to
 the modern method of comparative       
religion1 are significant4 ,when even   
,windisch admits that the form  of      
expression with regard to the new birth 
in the ,poimandres may  possibly be     
influenced by the ,gospel tradition1 and

 that the author  of the fourth         
,hermetic tractate1 for example1 was    
somewhat familiar  with ,new ,testament 
writings or ,christian ideas and        
assimilated  ,christian terminology to  
his gnosis1 and that the term faith has 
possibly come into ,hermes 7iv and ix7  
from ,christian tradition--in  the light
 of these admissions it may appear how  
very precarious is  the employment of   
,hermes ,trismegistus as a witness to   
pre-,christian  paganism4      #afa ,op4
 cit4      #afb ,article ,hermes        
,trismegistos1 in ,pauly-,wissowa1      
,real-,encyclopdie der classischen      
,altertumswissenschaft1 xv1 #aiab1      
pp4 #gia-hbc4      #afc ,op4 cit4       
#afd ,heinrici1 ,die ,hermes-,mystik und
 das ,neue ,testament1 #aiah4      #afe 
,windisch1 ,urchristentum und           
,hermesmystik1 in ,theologisch          
,tijdschrift1 lii1 #aiah1 pp4 #ahf-bdj4 
,opinions differ1 moreover1 as to the   
importance of the ,hermetic type  of    
thought in the life of the ancient      

world4 ,reitzenstein exalts its         
importance2 he believes that back of the
 ,hermetic writings there  lies a living
 religion1 and that this ,hermetic type 
of religion  was characteristic of the  
,hellenistic age4 ,at this point ,cumont
  and others are in sharp disagreement2 
,cumont believes that in the  ,west     
,hermetism had nothing more than a      
literary existence and did  not produce 
a ,hermetic sect1 and that in general   
,reitzenstein has  greatly exaggerated  
the ,hermetic influence4#aff ,with      
regard to this  controversy1 it can at  
least be said that ,reitzenstein has    
failed to  prove his point4      #aff   
,cumont1 op4 cit41 pp4 #cdj1 #cda       
7,english ,translation1 pp4    #bcc1    
#bcd1 note #da74    ,detailed exposition
 of the ,hermetic writings will here be 
impossible4 ,a number of recent         
investigators have covered the field    
with some thoroughness4 ,unfortunately a
 complete modern critical  edition of   
the ,hermetic corpus is still lacking2  

the student is  obliged to have recourse
 to the edition of ,parthey 7#ahed71afg 
which is not complete and does not quite
 measure up to modern  standards4       
,reitzenstein has included in his       
,poimandres 7#aijd7 a  critical edition 
of ,tractates ,i1 ,,xiii1 ,,xvi1 ,,xvii1
 ,,xviii4 ,there has  been no           
collection1 in the original languages1  
of all the ,hermetic  writings          
7including those outside of the corpus71
 though ,mnard has  provided a ,french  
translation1#afh and ,mead an ,english  
translation  with elaborate introduction
 and notes4#afi ,the work of ,mead1     
which  is published by the ,theosophical
 ,publishing ,society1 is not usually   
regarded as quite satisfactory4 ,but the
 translation at least will be  found    
exceedingly useful4 ,the systematic     
exposition of the thought  of the       
,hermetic writings by ,j4 ,kroll is     
clear and instructive2#agj  and         
,heinrici1 who differs from ,kroll in   
treating the individual  writings       

separately1 has also made a valuable    
contribution to the  subject4#aga       
#afg ,parthey1 ,hermetis ,trismegisti   
,poemander1 #ahed4      #afh ,mnard1    
,herms ,trismgiste1 #aiaj4      #afi    
,mead1 ,thrice-,greatest ,hermes1 three 
volumes1 #aijf4      #agj ,op4 cit4 ,cf4
 the review by ,bousset1 in ,gttingische
    gelehrte ,anzeigen1 clxxvi1 #aiad1  
pp4 #fig-gee4      #aga ,op4 cit4    ,in
 the ,hermetic tractates ,i and ,,xiii1 
upon which ,reitzenstein  lays the chief
 emphasis1 there is presented a notion  
of the  transformation of the one who   
receives divine revelation4 ,the        
transformation1 as in the ,hermetic     
writings generally1 is for the  most    
part independent of ceremonies or       
sacraments4 ,an experience  which in the
 mysteries is connected with an         
initiation involving an  appeal to the  
senses here seems to have been          
spiritualized under the  influence of   
philosophy2 regeneration comes not      
through a mystic  drama or the like but 

through an inner experience4 ,such at   
least  is a common modern interpretation
 of the genesis of the ,hermetic        
doctrine4 ,at any rate1 it seems to be  
impossible to reduce that  doctrine to  
anything like a consistent logical      
scheme4 ,reitzenstein  has tried to     
bring order out of chaos by             
distinguishing in the first  tractate   
two originally distinct views as to the 
origin of the world  and of man1 but his
 analysis has not won general           
acceptance4 ,it  must probably be       
admitted1 however1 that the ,hermetic   
literature  has received elements from  
various sources and has not succeeded in
  combining them in any consistent way4 
,the student who will first read        
,tractates ,i and ,,xiii for himself    
will probably be surprised when he is   
told 7for example by  ,reitzenstein7    
that here is to be found the spiritual  
atmosphere from  which ,paulinism came4 
,for there could be no sharper contrast 
than  that between the fantastic        

speculations of the ,poimandres and the 
historical gospel of ,paul4 ,both the   
,poimandres and ,paul have some  notion 
of a transformation that a man          
experiences through a divine            
revelation4 ,but the transformation1    
according to ,paul1 comes through  an   
account of what had happened but a few  
years before4 ,nothing  could possibly  
be more utterly foreign to ,hermes4 ,on 
the other  hand1 the result of the      
transformation in ,hermes is            
deification4  ,this1 says ,hermes       
7,tractate ,i1 #bf71 is the good end to 
those  who have received knowledge1 to  
be deified4#agb ,paul could never  have 
used such language4 ,for1 according to  
,paul1 the relation  between the        
believer and the ,christ who has        
transformed him is a  personal relation 
of love4 ,the ,christ-mysticism of ,paul
 is never  pantheistic4 ,it is indeed   
supernatural2 it is not produced by any 
mere influence brought to bear upon the 
old life4 ,but the result1  far from    

being apotheosis1 is personal communion 
of a man with his  ,god4      #agb      
1 4    ,in connection with ,hermes      
,trismegistus may be mentioned the      
so-called ,oracula ,chaldaica1 which    
apparently sprang from the same  general
 type of thought4#agc ,these ,oracula   
,chaldaica1 according  to ,w4 ,kroll1   
constitute a document of heathen gnosis1
 which was  produced about #bjj ,a4,d4  
,although ,kroll believes that there is 
here  no ,christian influence1 and that 
,jewish influence touches not the       
center but only the circumference1 yet  
for the reasons already  noticed it     
would be precarious to use a document of
 #bjj ,a4,d4 in  reconstructing         
pre-,pauline paganism4      #agc ,see   
,w4 ,kroll1 ,de ,oraculis ,chaldaicis1  
#ahid2 ,die    chaldischen ,orakel1 in  
,rheinisches ,museum fr ,philologie1 l1 
#ahie1 pp4 #fcf-fci4    ,a very         
important source of information about   
the ,greco-oriental  religion of the    
,hellenistic age is found by scholars   

like ,dieterich  and ,reitzenstein in   
the so-called magical papyri4 ,among the
 many  interesting papyrus documents    
which have recently been discovered  in 
,egypt are some that contain formulas   
intended to be used in  incantations4   
,at first sight these formulas look like
 hopeless  nonsense2 it may perhaps even
 be said that they are intended to  be  
nonsense4 ,that is1 the effect is       
sought1 not from any logical            
understanding of the formulas either on 
the part of those who use  them or on   
the part of the higher powers upon whom 
they are to be  used1 but simply and    
solely from the mechanical effect of    
certain  combinations of sounds4 ,thus  
the magical papyri include not only     
divine names in foreign languages 7the  
ancient and original name  of a god     
being regarded as exerting a coercive   
effect upon that  god71 but also many   
meaningless rows of letters which do not
 form  words at all4 ,but according to  
,dieterich and ,reitzenstein and        

others1 these papyri1 nonsensical as    
they are in their completed  form1 often
 embody materials which belong not to   
magic but to  religion2 in particular1  
they make use1 for a magical purpose1   
of what was originally intended to be   
used in a living religious  cult4       
,indeed the distinction between magic   
and religion is often  difficult to     
draw4 ,in religion there is an element  
of interest1  on the part of the        
worshiper1 in the higher powers as such1
 some  idea of propitiating them1 of    
winning their favor2 whereas in  magic  
the higher powers are made use of as    
though they were mere  machines through 
the use of incantations and spells4 ,but
 when this  distinction is applied to   
the ancient mystery religions1 sometimes
  these religions seem to be little more
 than magic1 so external  and mechanical
 is the way in which the initiation is  
supposed to  work4 ,it is not           
surprising1 therefore1 if the composers 
of magical  formulas turned especially1 

in seeking their materials1 to the      
mystery cults2 for they were drawn in   
that direction by a certain  affinity   
both of purpose and of method4 ,at any  
rate1 whatever may  be the explanation1 
the existing magical papyri1 according  
to  ,dieterich and others1 do contain   
important elements derived from the     
oriental religious cults2 it is only    
necessary1 ,dieterich maintains1  to    
subtract the obviously later            
elements--the nonsensical rows  of      
letters and the like--in order to obtain
 important sources of  information about
 the religious life of the ,hellenistic 
age4    ,this method has been applied by
 ,dieterich especially to a ,paris      
magical papyrus1 with the result that   
the underlying religious  document is   
found to be nothing less than a liturgy 
of the  religion of ,mithras4#agd       
,dieterich's conclusions have not       
escaped  unchallenged2 the connection of
 the document with ,mithraism has been  
denied1 for example1 by ,cumont4#age ,of

 course1 even if the document  be not   
really a ,mithras liturgy1 it may still 
be of great value  in the reconstruction
 of ,hellenistic gnosis4 ,with regard to
 date1  however1 it is not any more     
favorably placed than the documents     
which have just been considered4 ,the   
papyrus manuscript in which the  liturgy
 is contained was written at the        
beginning of the fourth  century after  
,christ2 and the composition of the     
liturgy itself  cannot be fixed         
definitely at any very much earlier     
date4#agf  ,dieterich supposes that the 
beginning was made in the second        
century1 and that there were successive 
additions afterward4 ,at any  rate1     
then1 not only the papyrus manuscript1  
but also the liturgy  which it is       
thought to contain1 was produced long   
after the time  of ,paul4 ,like the     
,hermetic writings1 moreover1           
,dieterich's ,mithras  liturgy presents 
a conception of union with divinity     
which is really  altogether unlike the  

,pauline gospel4      #agd ,dieterich1  
,eine ,mithrasliturgie1 #bte ,aufl41    
#aiaj4      #age ,op4 cit41 p4 #cgi     
7,english ,translation1 pp4 #bfj;f474   
#agf ,dieterich1 op4 cit41 pp4 #dc;f4   
,but information about pre-,christian   
paganism is being sought not  only in   
ostensibly pagan sources2 it is also    
being sought in the  ,gnosticism which  
appears in connection with the          
,christian ,church4  ,gnosticism used to
 be regarded as a heresy1 a perversion  
of  ,christian belief4 ,now1 on the     
contrary1 it is being regarded as       
essentially non-,christian1 as a        
manifestation of ,greco-oriental        
religion which was brought into only    
very loose connection with              
,christianity2 the great ,gnostic       
systems of the second century1 it  is   
said1 when they are stripped of a few   
comparatively unimportant  ,christian   
elements are found to represent not a   
development from  ,christianity but     
rather the spiritual atmosphere from    

which  ,christianity itself sprang4     
,if this view of the case be correct1 it
 is at least significant  that pagan    
teachers of the second century 7the     
,gnostics7 should have  been so ready to
 adopt ,christian elements and so       
anxious to give  their systems a        
,christian appearance4 ,why should a    
similar procedure  be denied in the     
case1 for example1 of ,hermes           
,trismegistus8 ,if  second-century      
paganism1 without at all modifying its  
essential  character1 could sometimes   
actually adopt the name of ,christ1 why 
should it be thought incredible that the
 compiler of the ,hermetic  literature1 
who did not go quite so far1 should yet 
have permitted  ,christian elements to  
creep into his syncretistic work8 ,why  
should  similarity of language between  
,hermes and ,paul1 supposing that it    
exists1 be regarded as proving          
dependence of ,paul upon a type of      
paganism like that of ,hermes1 rather   
than dependence of ,hermes upon  ,paul8 

,but the use of ,gnosticism as a witness
 to pre-,christian paganism  is faced   
with obvious difficulties4 ,gnosticism  
has admittedly  been influenced by      
,christianity4 ,who can say1 then1      
exactly how  far the ,christian         
influence extends8 ,who can say that any
 element  in ,gnosticism1 found also in 
the ,new ,testament1 but not clearly    
contained in pagan sources1 is derived  
from paganism rather than  from         
,christianity8 ,yet it is just exactly  
such procedure which is  advocated by   
,reitzenstein and others4    ,the       
dangers of the procedure may be         
exhibited by an example4 ,in  ,hermes   
,trismegistus the spirit is regarded as 
the garment of the  soul4#agg ,this     
doctrine is the exact reverse of        
,pauline teaching1  since it makes the  
soul appear higher than the spirit1     
whereas in  ,paul the ,spirit1 in the   
believer1 is exalted far above the soul4
  ,in ,hermes the spirit appears as a   
material substratum of the soul2  in    

,paul the ,spirit represents the divine 
power4 ,there could be no  sharper      
contradiction4 ,and the matter is       
absolutely central in  ,reitzenstein's  
hypothesis1 for it is just the ,pauline 
doctrine of  the ,spirit which he is    
seeking to derive from pagan religion4  
,the  difficulty for ,reitzenstein1     
then1 is that in ,hermes the spirit     
appears as the garment of the soul1     
whereas in the interests of  his theory 
the soul ought to appear rather as the  
garment of the  spirit4 ,but            
,reitzenstein avoids the difficulty by  
appealing to  ,gnosticism4 ,the         
,hermetic doctrine1 he says1 is nothing 
but the  necessary philosophic reversal 
of the ,gnostic doctrine that the  soul 
is the garment of the spirit4#agh ,thus 
,gnosticism is here made  to be a       
witness to pre-,christian pagan belief1 
in direct defiance  of pagan sources4   
,is it not more probable that the       
difference  between ,gnosticism on the  
one hand and pagan gnosis as represented

  by ,hermes on the other1 is due to the
 influence upon the former  of the      
,christian doctrine8 ,it is interesting 
to observe that ,j4  ,kroll1 from whom  
the above illustration is obtained1     
insists against  ,reitzenstein that the 
,gnostic doctrine1 as over against the  
doctrine  of ,hermes1 is here clearly   
secondary4#agi ,at any rate1 then1 the  
reconstruction of a pre-,christian pagan
 doctrine of the soul as the  garment of
 the spirit is a matter of pure         
conjecture4      #agg ,corp4 ,herm4 x4  
#ac4      #agh ,reitzenstein1           
,hellenistische ,mysterienreligionen1   
#bte ,aufl41    #aibj1 p4 #ahc4         
#agi ,j4 ,kroll1 op4 cit41 pp4 #bhf-bhi1
 especially p4 #bhh1 ,anm4 #a4          
,similar difficulties appear everywhere4
 ,it is certainly very  hazardous to use
 ,gnosticism1 a post-,pauline phenomenon
 appealing  to ,paul as one of its chief
 sources1 as a witness to pre-,pauline  
paganism4 ,certainly such use of        
,gnosticism should be carefully  limited

 to those matters where there is some   
confirmatory pagan  testimony4 ,but such
 confirmatory testimony1 in the decisive
 cases1  is significantly absent4       
,the use of ,gnosticism as a source of  
information about pre-,christian        
paganism might be less precarious if the
 separation of the pagan  and ,christian
 elements could be carried out by means 
of literary  criticism4 ,such a method  
is employed by ,reitzenstein in         
connection  with an interesting passage 
in ,hippolytus4 ,in attacking the       
,gnostic sect of the ,naassenes1        
,hippolytus says that the sect has  been
 dependent upon the pagan mysteries1 and
 in proof he quotes  a ,naassene        
writing4 ,this quotation1 as it now     
exists in the work  of ,hippolytus1 is1 
according to ,reitzenstein1 a pagan text
 with  ,gnostic-,christian scholia 7or  
in a ,gnostic-,christian revision71     
which has been taken over by an opponent
 who did not understand  this state of  
the case1 and so1 in this form1 has been

 used by  ,hippolytus4#ahj ,reitzenstein
 seeks to reproduce the pagan           
document4#aha      #ahj ,reitzenstein1  
,poimandres1 p4 #hb4      #aha ,op4     
cit41 pp4 #hc-ih4    ,unquestionably the
 passage is interesting1 and            
unquestionably it  contains important   
information about the pagan mysteries4  
,but it  does not help to establish     
influence of the mysteries upon ,paul4  
,it must be observed that what is now   
being maintained against  ,reitzenstein 
is not that the ,gnostics who appear in 
the polemic  of the anti-heretical1     
ecclesiastical writers of the close of  
the  second century and the beginning of
 the third were not influenced  by      
pre-,christian paganism1 or even that   
they did not derive the  fundamentals of
 their type of religion from            
pre-,christian paganism4  ,all that is  
being maintained is that it is very     
precarious to use  the ,gnostic systems 
in reconstructing pre-,christian        
paganism in  detail--especially where   

the ,gnostic systems differ from        
admittedly  pagan sources and agree with
 ,paul4 ,in reconstructing the origin of
  ,paulinism it is precarious to employ 
the testimony of those who  lived after 
,paul and actually quoted ,paul4    ,all
 the sources of information about       
,greco-oriental religion which  have    
thus far been discussed belong to a time
 subsequent to ,paul4  ,if the type of  
religion which they attest is to be     
pushed back  into the pre-,christian    
period1 it can be done only by an appeal
  to earlier sources4 ,such earlier     
sources are sometimes found in  passages
 like ,livy's description of the        
,bacchanalian rites of  the second      
century before ,christ in ,italy1 and in
 writers such  as ,posidonius and       
,philo4 ,but the presence of            
,bacchanalian rites  in ,italy in the   
second century before ,christ is not    
particularly  significant1 and the      
details of those rites do not include   
the  features which in the later sources

 are thought to invite comparison  with 
,paul4 ,posidonius1 the ,stoic          
philosopher of the first century  before
 ,christ1 seems to have been a man of   
very great influence2  and no doubt he  
did introduce oriental elements into the
 ,stoic  philosophy4 ,but his works1 for
 the most part1 have been lost1  and so 
far as they have been reconstructed by  
the use of writers  who were dependent  
upon him1 they do not seem to contain   
those  elements which might be regarded 
as explaining the genesis of            
,paulinism4 ,with regard to ,philo1 who 
was an older contemporary  of ,paul1 the
 investigator finds himself in a much   
more favorable  position1 since         
voluminous works of the ,alexandrian    
philosopher  have been preserved4 ,there
 is a tendency in recent investigation  
to make ,philo an important witness to  
,greco-oriental religion as  it found   
expression in the mysteries4#ahb ,but   
the bearing of  the evidence does not   
seem to be absolutely unequivocal4 ,at  

any  rate1 the relation between ,paul   
and ,philo has been the subject of      
investigation for many years1 and it    
cannot be said that the results  have   
accomplished anything toward explaining 
the genesis of ,paul's  religion4       
,direct dependence of ,paul upon ,philo1
 it is admitted1 has  not been proved1  
and even dependence of both upon the    
same type of  thought is highly         
problematical4 ,the state of the        
evidence is not  essentially altered by 
designating as the type of thought upon 
which  both are supposed to have been   
dependent the ,greco-oriental religion  
of the mysteries4 ,the real question is 
whether the testimony of  ,philo        
establishes as of pre-,christian origin 
that type of mystical  piety from which 
,paulinism is being derived--the type of
 religion  which is attested1 for       
example1 by ,firmicus ,maternus or by   
the  fourth-century inscriptions that   
deal with the taurobolium1 or by        
,hermes ,trismegistus1 or by            

,dieterich's ,mithras liturgy1 or by the
  pagan elements which are supposed to  
lie back of second-century  ,gnosticism4
 ,and so far as can be judged on the    
basis of the evidence  which is actually
 being adduced by the                   
comparative-religion school1  the       
question must be answered in the        
negative4 ,even the living  connection  
of ,philo with the mysteries of his own 
day does not  seem to be definitely     
established4 ,and if it were            
established1 the  further question would
 remain as to whether the mystery       
religions  of ,philo's day contained    
just those elements which in the mystery
  religions of the post-,pauline period 
are supposed to show similarity  to     
,paul4 ,if the mystical piety which is  
attested by ,philo is  sufficient to be 
regarded as the basis of ,paulinism1 why
 should the  investigator appeal to     
,firmicus ,maternus8 ,and if he does    
appeal to  ,firmicus ,maternus1 with    
what right can he assume that the       

elements  which he thus finds existed in
 the days of ,philo and of ,paul8       
#ahb ,helbig1 review of ,philo von      
,alexandrien3 ,werke1 in deut4          
,uebersetzg4 hrsg4 v4 ,prof4 ,dr4 ,leop4
 ,cohn4 #c4 ,tl41 in ,theologische      
,literaturzeitung1 xlv1 #aibj1 column   
#cj3 ,here one perceives with    all    
requisite clearness that ,philo did not 
merely imitate the    language of the   
mystery religions1 but had been himself 
a 4          ,,chapter ,,vii            
,,redemption ,,in ,,pagan ,,religion    
,,and ,,in ,,paul          ,,chapter    
,,vii    ,,redemption ,,in ,,pagan      
,,religion ,,and ,,in ,,paul      ,it   
has been observed thus far that in      
comparing ,paul with  ,hellenistic pagan
 religion1 the question of priority     
cannot be  ruled out so easily as is    
sometimes supposed4 ,another preliminary
  question1 moreover1 remains4 ,through 
what channels did the supposed          
influence of the mystery religions enter
 into the life of ,paul8  ,the question 

is somewhat perplexing4 ,in view of the 
outline of  ,paul's life which was set  
forth in ,chapters ,,ii and ,,iii1 it   
would  seem difficult to find a place   
for the entrance of pagan religious     
thought4    ,one suggestion is that     
pagan thought came to ,paul only through
 the  medium of ,judaism4 ,that         
suggestion would explain the            
consciousness  that ,paul attests of    
having been1 before his conversion1 a   
devout  ,jew4 ,if pagan religion had    
already entered into the warp and woof  
of ,judaism1 and if the throes of the   
process of assimilation had  already    
been forgotten before the time of ,paul1
 then ,paul might  regard himself as a  
devout ,jew1 hostile to all pagan       
influence1 and  yet be profoundly       
influenced by the paganism which had    
already found  an entrance into the     
,jewish stronghold4    ,but the trouble 
is that with regard to those matters    
which are  thought to be necessary for  
the explanation of ,paul's religion     

there  is no evidence that paganism had 
entered into the common life of  the    
,jews4 ,it has been shown in ,chapter ,v
 that the ,judaism of the  first        
century1 as it can be reconstructed by  
the use of the extant  sources1 is      
insufficient to account for the origin  
of ,paulinism4  ,that fact is admitted  
by those scholars who are having        
recourse to  the hypothesis of pagan    
influence4 ,therefore1 if the pagan     
influence  came to ,paul through the    
medium of ,judaism1 the historian must  
first  posit the existence of a ,judaism
 into which the necessary pagan         
elements had entered4 ,there is no      
evidence for the existence of  such a   
,judaism2 in fact the extant ,jewish    
sources point clearly  in an opposite   
direction4 ,it is exceedingly difficult1
 therefore1  to suppose1 in defiance of 
the ,jewish sources1 and in the mere    
interests of a theory as to the genesis 
of ,paulinism1 that the  ,pharisaic     
,judaism from which ,paul sprang was    

imbued with a mystical  piety like that 
of the mystery religions or of ,hermes  
,trismegistus4  ,in fact1 in view of the
 known character of ,pharisaic ,judaism1
 the  hypothesis is nothing short of    
monstrous4    ,therefore1 if ,paul was  
influenced by the pagan mystery         
religions  it could not have been simply
 in virtue of his connection with       
first-century ,judaism2 it must have    
been due to some special  influences    
which were brought to bear upon him4    
,where could these  influences have been
 exerted8 ,one suggestion is that they  
were  exerted in ,tarsus1 his boyhood   
home4 ,stress is thus laid upon the     
fact that ,paul was born not in         
,palestine but in the ,dispersion4 ,as  
he grew up in ,tarsus1 it is said1 he   
could not help observing the  paganism  
that surrounded him4 ,at this point1    
some historians1 on  entirely           
insufficient evidence1 are inclined to  
be specific2 they  are tempted1 for     
example1 to speak of mysteries of       

,mithras as being  practised in or near 
,tarsus in ,paul's early years4 ,the    
hypothesis  is only weakened by such    
incautious advocacy2 it is much better  
to  point merely to the undoubted fact  
that ,tarsus was a pagan city and  was  
presumably affected by the existing     
currents of pagan life4  ,but if ,paul  
grew up in a pagan environment1 was he  
influenced by  it8 ,an affirmative      
answer would seem to run counter to his 
own  testimony4 ,although ,paul was born
 in ,tarsus1 he belonged inwardly  to   
,palestine2 he and his parents before   
him were not ,hellenists  but ,hebrews4 
,moreover1 he was a ,pharisee1 more     
exceedingly zealous  than his           
contemporaries for his paternal         
traditions4 ,the evidence  has been     
examined in a previous chapter4         
,certainly then1 ,paul was  not a       
liberal ,jew2 far from being inclined to
 break down the wall  of partition      
between ,jews and ,gentiles he was      
especially zealous  for the ,law4 ,it is

 very difficult to conceive of such a   
man--with  his excessive zeal for the   
,mosaic ,law1 with his intense hatred of
  paganism1 with his intense            
consciousness of the all-sufficiency of 
,jewish privileges--as being susceptible
 to the pagan influences that           
surrounded his orthodox home4    ,the   
hypothesis must1 therefore1 at least be 
modified to the extent  that the pagan  
influence exerted at ,tarsus be regarded
 as merely  unconscious4 ,paul did not  
deliberately accept the pagan religion  
of  ,tarsus1 it might be said1 but at   
least he became acquainted with it1  and
 his acquaintance with it became        
fruitful after he entered upon  his     
,gentile mission4 ,according to this    
hypothesis1 the attitude of  ,paul      
toward pagan religion was in the early  
days in ,tarsus merely  negative1 but   
became more favorable 7whether or no    
,paul himself  was conscious of the real
 source of the pagan ideas7 because of  
subsequent events4 ,but what were the   

events which induced in ,paul a  more   
favorable attitude toward ideas which   
were really pagan8 ,when  did he        
overcome his life-long antagonism to    
everything connected  with the worship  
of false gods8 ,such a change of        
attitude is  certainly not attested by  
the ,epistles4    ,it will probably be  
admitted that if pagan influence entered
 into  the heart of ,paul's religious   
life it could only have done so by  some
 more subtle way than by the mere       
retention in ,paul's mind of  what he   
had seen at ,tarsus4 ,the way which     
finds special favor among  recent       
historians is discovered in the         
pre-,pauline ,christianity of  cities   
like ,damascus and ,antioch4 ,when ,paul
 was converted1 it is  said1 he was     
converted not to the ,christianity of   
,jerusalem1 but to  the ,christianity of
 ,damascus and ,antioch4 ,but the       
,christianity of  ,damascus and         
,antioch1 it is supposed1 had already   
received pagan  elements2 hence the very

 fact of ,paul's conversion broke down  
his  ,jewish prejudices and permitted   
the influx of pagan ideas4 ,of course   
,paul did not know that they were pagan 
ideas2 he supposed that  they were      
merely ,christian2 but pagan they were1 
nevertheless4 ,the  ,hellenistic ,jews  
who founded the churches at ,damascus   
and ,antioch1  unlike the original      
apostles at ,jerusalem1 were liberal    
,jews1  susceptible to pagan influence  
and desirous of attributing to ,jesus   
all that the pagans attributed to their 
own cult-gods4 ,thus ,jesus  became a   
cult-god like the cult-gods of the pagan
 religions1 and  ,christianity became   
similar1 in important respects1 to the  
pagan  cults4    ,this hypothesis has   
been advocated brilliantly by ,heitmller
 and  ,bousset4#ahc ,but what evidence  
can be adduced in favor of it8 ,how  may
 the ,christianity of ,damascus and     
,antioch1 which is supposed  to have    
been influenced by pagan religion1 be   
reconstructed8 ,even  ,heitmller and    

,bousset admit that the reconstruction  
is very  difficult4 ,the only           
unquestioned source of information about
 the  pre-,pauline ,christianity which  
is the subject of investigation is to   
be found in the ,pauline ,epistles      
themselves4 ,but if the material is     
found in the ,pauline ,epistles1 how can
 the historian be sure that it  is not  
the product of ,paul's own thinking8    
,how can the specifically  ,pauline     
element in the ,epistles be separated   
from the element which  is supposed to  
have been derived from pre-,pauline     
,hellenistic  ,christianity8      #ahc  
,see especially ,heitmller1 ,zum        
,problem ,paulus und ,jesus1 in         
,zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche   
,wissenschaft1 xiii1 #aiab1    pp4      
#cbj-ccg2 ,jesus und ,paulus1 in        
,zeitschrift fr ,theologie und          
,kirche1 xxv1 #aiae1 pp4 #aef-agi2      
,bousset1 ,jesus der ,herr1 #aiaf1      
pp4 #cj-cg4    ,the process of          
separation1 it must be admitted1 is     

difficult4 ,but1  according to ,bousset 
and ,heitmller1 it is not impossible4   
,there are  passages in the ,epistles   
where ,paul evidently assumes that      
certain  things are known already to his
 readers4 ,in churches where ,paul      
himself had not already had the         
opportunity of teaching1 notably  at    
,rome1 those elements assumed as already
 known must have been  derived1 it is   
said1 from teachers other than ,paul2   
they must have  formed part of the      
pre-,pauline fund of ,hellenistic       
,christianity4    ,but in order to      
reconstruct this pre-,pauline           
,hellenistic  ,christianity1 it is not  
sufficient to separate what ,paul had   
received from what he himself produced4 
,another process of  separation remains2
 and this second process is vastly more 
difficult  than the first4 ,in order to 
reconstruct the ,hellenistic            
,christianity  of ,antioch1 upon which  
,paulinism is thought to be based1 it is
  necessary not only to separate what   

,paul received from what he  produced1  
but also to separate what he received   
from ,antioch from  what he received    
from ,jerusalem4 ,it is in connection   
with this  latter process that the      
hypothesis of ,heitmller and ,bousset   
breaks down4 ,unquestionably some       
elements in the ,epistles can be        
established as having been received by  
,paul from those who had been           
,christians before him4 ,one notable    
example is found in #a ,cor4 xv4  #a-g4 
,in that all-important passage ,paul    
distinctly says that he  had received   
his account of the death1 burial1 and   
resurrection  of ,jesus4 ,but how does  
,bousset know that he received it from  
the  ,church at ,antioch or the ,church 
at ,damascus rather than from the       
,church at ,jerusalem8 ,paul had been in
 intimate contact with ,peter  in       
,jerusalem2 ,peter is prominent in #a   
,cor4 xv4 #a-g4 ,what reason is  there1 
then1 for deserting the common view1    
regarded almost as an  axiom of         

criticism1 to the effect that #a ,cor4  
xv4 #a-g represents the  tradition of   
the ,jerusalem ,church which ,paul      
received from ,peter8    ,moreover1 what
 right have ,bousset and ,heitmller to  
use the ,epistle  to the ,romans in     
reconstructing the ,christianity of     
,antioch8 ,even  if in that ,epistle the
 elements of specifically ,pauline      
teaching  can be separated from those   
things which ,paul regards as already   
matter of course in the ,roman ,church1 
what reason is there to assume  that the
 pre-,pauline ,christianity of ,rome was
 the same as the  pre-,pauline          
,christianity of ,antioch and ,damascus8
 ,information about  the pre-,pauline   
,christianity of ,antioch and ,damascus 
is1 to say the  least1 scanty and       
uncertain4 ,and it is that ,christianity
 only--the  ,christianity with which    
,paul came into contact soon after his  
conversion--and not the ,christianity of
 ,rome1 which can be of use in          
explaining the origin of ,paul's        

religion4    ,finally1 what reason is   
there for supposing that the            
,christianity  of ,damascus and ,antioch
 was different in essentials from the   
,christianity of ,jerusalem8 ,an        
important step1 it is said1 was taken   
when the gospel was transplanted from   
its native ,palestinian soil  to the    
,greek-speaking world--the most         
momentous step in the whole  history of 
,christianity1 the most heavily fraught 
with changes4 ,but  it must be          
remembered that the primitive ,jerusalem
 ,church itself  was bilingual2 it      
contained a large ,greek-speaking       
element4 ,the  transplanting of the     
gospel to ,antioch was accomplished not 
by any  ordinary ,jews of the           
,dispersion1 but by those ,jews of the  
,dispersion  who had lived at ,jerusalem
 and had received their instruction from
  the intimate friends of ,jesus4 ,is it
 likely that such men would  so soon    
forget the impressions that they had    
received1 and would  transform          

,christianity from a simple acceptance  
of ,jesus as ,messiah  with eager       
longing for ,his return into a cult that
 emulated the  pagan cults of the       
surrounding world by worship of ,jesus  
as ,lord8  ,the transition1 if it       
occurred at all1 occurred with          
astonishing  rapidity4 ,paul was        
converted only two or three years after 
the  crucifixion of ,jesus4 ,if1        
therefore1 the paganizing ,hellenistic  
,christianity of ,damascus and ,antioch 
was to be the spiritual soil  in which  
,paul's religion was nurtured1 it must  
have been formed in  the very early     
days4 ,the pagan influences could hardly
 have begun  to enter after the         
conversion of ,paul4#ahd ,for then ,paul
 would have  been conscious of their    
entrance1 and all the advantages of the 
hypothesis would disappear--the         
hypothesis would then be excluded  by   
the self-testimony of ,paul4 ,but the   
formation of a paganizing  ,christianity
 at ,antioch and ,damascus1 in the very 

early days and by  the instrumentality  
of men who had come under the           
instruction of  the intimate friends of 
,jesus1 and despite the constant        
intercourse  between ,jerusalem and the 
cities in question1 is very difficult to
  conceive4 ,at any rate1 the separation
 between what ,paul received  from      
,antioch and ,damascus and what he      
received from ,jerusalem is  quite      
impossible4 ,heitmller and ,bousset have
 not really helped  matters by trying to
 place an additional link in the chain  
between  ,paul and ,jesus4 ,the         
,hellenistic ,christianity of ,antioch1 
supposed to  be distinct from the       
,christianity of ,jerusalem1 is to say  
the least  a very shadowy thing4        
#ahd ,but compare ,bousset1 op4 cit41 p4
 #cb4    ,but ,bousset and ,heitmller   
probably will not maintain that all the 
pagan influences which entered the life 
of ,paul entered through the  gateway of
 pre-,pauline ,hellenistic              
,christianity4 ,on the contrary1  it    

will probably be said that ,paul lived  
all his life in the midst  of a pagan   
religious atmosphere1 which affected him
 directly as  well as through the       
community at ,antioch4 ,but how was this
 direct  pagan influence exerted8 ,some 
suppose that it was exerted through  the
 reading of pagan religious literature2 
others suppose that it  came merely     
through conversation with the man in the
 street4 ,paul  desired to become all   
things to all men 7we are reminded71 in 
order  that by all means he might save  
some 7#a ,cor4 ix4 #bb74 ,but what was  
more necessary for winning the ,gentiles
 than familiarity with their  habits of 
thought and life8 ,therefore1 it is     
said1 ,paul must have  made some study  
of paganism in order to put his         
proclamation of the  gospel in a form   
which would appeal to the pagans whom he
 sought to  win4    ,a certain element  
of truth underlies this contention4 ,it 
should  not be supposed that ,paul was  
ignorant of the pagan life that         

surrounded him4 ,he uses figures of     
speech derived from the athletic  games2
 here and there in his ,epistles he     
makes reference to the  former religious
 practices of his converts4 ,it is not  
unnatural  that he should occasionally  
have sought common ground with those  to
 whom he preached1 in accordance with   
the example contained in  the           
seventeenth chapter of ,acts4 ,but on   
the whole1 the picture of  ,paul making 
a study of paganism in preparation for  
his life-work is  too modern to be      
convincing4 ,it may seem natural to     
those modern  missionaries who no longer
 regard ,christianity as a positive     
religion1 who no longer insist upon any 
sharp break on the part  of the converts
 with their ancestral ways of thinking1 
who are  perfectly content to derive    
help from all quarters and are far more 
interested in improving political and   
social conditions in the  land for which
 they labor than they are in securing   
assent to any  specific ,christian      

message4 ,the ,christianity of such     
missionaries  might consistently be     
hospitable to foreign influence2 such   
missionaries might assign the central   
place in their preparation  to the      
investigation of the religious life of  
mission lands4 ,but  the ,christianity  
of ,paul was entirely different4 ,paul  
was convinced  of the exclusiveness and 
the all-sufficiency of his own message4 
,the message had been revealed to him   
directly by the ,lord4 ,it  was         
supported by the testimony of those who 
had been intimate  with ,jesus2 it was  
supported by the ,old ,testament        
,scriptures4 ,but  throughout it was the
 product of revelation4 ,to the ,jews it
 was a  stumbling-block1 to the ,greeks 
foolishness4 ,but to those who were     
saved it was the power of ,god and the  
wisdom of ,god4 ,where is the  wise1    
says ,paul1 where is the scribe1 where  
is the disputer of  this world8 hath not
 ,god made foolish the wisdom of the    
world8 ,it  is a little difficult to    

suppose that the man who wrote these    
words  was willing to modify the divine 
foolishness of his message in order  to 
make it conform to the religion of pagan
 hearers4    ,two reservations1         
therefore1 are necessary before the     
investigator  can enter upon an actual  
comparison of the ,pauline ,epistles    
with  ,hermes ,trismegistus and other   
similar sources4 ,in the first place1   
it has not been proved that the type of 
religion attested by these  sources     
existed at all in the time of ,paul2#ahe
 and in the second  place1 it is        
difficult to see how any pagan influence
 could have  entered into ,paul's life4 
,but if despite these difficulties the  
comparison be instituted1 it will show1 
as a matter of fact1 not  agreement1 but
 a most striking divergence both of     
language and of  spirit4      #ahe ,see 
,chapter ,,vi4    ,the investigation may
 be divided into three parts1 although  
the three parts will be found to overlap
 at many points4 ,three  fundamental    

elements in ,paul's religion have been  
derived from  ,greco-oriental           
syncretism3 first1 the complex of ideas 
connected  with the obtaining of        
salvation2 second1 the sacraments2      
third1 the  ,christology and the work of
 ,christ in redemption4#ahf      #ahf   
,for what follows1 compare especially   
,kennedy1 ,st4 ,paul and    the         
,mystery-,religions1 #aiac2 ,clemen1    
,religionsgeschichtliche    ,erklrung   
des ,neuen ,testaments1 #aiji 7,english 
,translation1    ,primitive             
,christianity and ,its ,non-,jewish     
,sources1 #aiab71 ,der    ,einfluss der 
,mysterienreligionen auf das lteste     
,christentum1 #aiac4    ,these writers  
deny for the most part any influence of 
the mystery    religions upon the center
 of ,paul's religion4 ,for a            
thoroughgoing    presentation of the    
other side of the controversy1 see1 in  
addition    to the works of ,bousset and
 ,reitzenstein1 ,loisy1 ,les mystres    
paens et le mystre chrtien1 #aiai4      

,the first of the three divisions just  
enumerated is connected  especially with
 the name of ,r4 ,reitzenstein4#ahg     
,reitzenstein lays  great stress upon   
the lexical method of study2 it may be  
proved1 he  believes1 that ,paul used   
terms which were derived from           
,hellenistic  mystical religion1 and    
with the terms went the ideas4 ,the     
ideas1 he  admits1 were not taken over  
without modification1 but even after the
  ,pauline modifications are subtracted1
 enough is thought to remain  in order  
to show that the mystery religions      
exerted an important  influence upon    
,paul4      #ahg ,poimandres1 #aijd2    
,die hellenistischen                    
,mysterienreligionen1    #bte ,aufl41   
#aibj2 ,religionsgeschichte und         
,eschatologie1 in    ,zeitschrift fr die
 neutestamentliche ,wissenschaft1 xiii1 
#aiab1    pp4 #a-bh4    ,thus           
,reitzenstein attempts to exhibit in the
 ,pauline ,epistles a  technical        
vocabulary derived from the ,hellenized 

mystery religions4  ,this supposed      
technical vocabulary embraces especially
 the terms  connected with knowledge#ahh
 and ,spirit4#ahi      #ahh 4      #ahi 
4    ,in the mystical religion of       
,paul's day1 ,reitzenstein says1 gnosis 
7knowledge7 did not mean knowledge      
acquired by processes of  investigation 
or reasoning1 but the knowledge that    
came by immediate  revelation from a    
god4 ,such immediate revelation was     
given1 in the  mystery cults1 by the    
mystic vision which formed a part of the
  experience of initiation2 in the      
philosophizing derivatives of the       
mystery cults1 like the type of piety   
which is attested in ,hermes            
,trismegistus1 the revelation could be  
divorced from any external  acts and    
connected with the mere reading of a    
book4 ,but in any case1  gnosis was not 
regarded as an achievement of the       
intellect2 it was  an experience granted
 by divine favor4 ,the man who had      
received such  favor was exalted far    

above ordinary humanity2 indeed he was  
already  deified4    ,this conception of
 gnosis1 ,reitzenstein believes1 is the 
conception  which is found in the       
,pauline ,epistles2 gnosis according to 
,paul was  a gift of ,god1 an experience
 produced by the divine ,spirit4 ,in the
  case of ,paul1 ,reitzenstein          
continues1 the experience was produced  
through a vision of the risen ,christ4  
,that vision had changed the  very      
nature of ,paul4 ,it is true1 ,paul     
avoids the term deification2  he does   
not say1 in accordance with ,hellenistic
 usage1 that he had  ceased to be a man 
and had become ,god4 ,this limitation   
was required  by his ,jewish habits of  
thought4 ,but he does say that through  
his  vision he was illumined and        
received glory4 ,thus1 although the     
term deification is avoided1 the idea is
 present4 ,as one who has  received     
gnosis1 ,paul regards himself as being  
beyond the reach of  human judgments1   
and is not interested in tradition that 

came from  other ,christians4 ,in short1
 according to ,reitzenstein1 ,paul was a
  true gnostic4    ,but this conclusion 
is reached only by doing violence to the
 plain  meaning of the ,epistles4       
,gnosis in the early ,church 7including 
,paul71 as ,von ,harnack well           
observes1#aij is not a technical term2  
it is no more a technical term than is1 
for example1 wisdom4 ,in  #a ,cor4 xii4 
#h it appears1 not by itself1 but along 
with many other  spiritual gifts of     
widely diverse nature4 ,gnosis1         
therefore1 does  not stand in that      
position of prominence which it ought to
 occupy  if ,reitzenstein's theory were 
correct4 ,it is1 indeed1 according to   
,paul1 important2 and it is a direct    
gift from ,god4 ,but what reason  is    
there to have recourse to ,hellenistic  
mystery religions in order  to explain  
either its importance or its nature8    
,another explanation  is found much     
nearer at hand--namely1 in the ,old     
,testament4 ,the  possibility of ,old   

,testament influence in ,paul does not  
have to be  established by any elaborate
 arguments1 and is not opposed by his   
own testimony4 ,on the contrary1 he     
appeals to the ,old ,testament  again   
and again in his ,epistles4 ,and the    
,old ,testament contains  all the       
elements of his conception of the       
knowledge of ,god4 ,even  the ,greek    
noun gnosis occurs in the ,septuagint   
7though with  comparative infrequency72 
but what is far more important is that  
the idea is expressed countless times by
 the verb4 ,let it not be  said that the
 ,septuagint is a ,hellenistic book1 and
 that therefore  if the ,septuagint idea
 of the knowledge of ,god affords the   
basis  for ,pauline teaching that does  
not disprove the influence of the       
,hellenistic mystery religions4 ,for in 
its rendering of the passages  dealing  
with the knowledge of ,god1 whatever may
 be said of other  matters1 the         
,septuagint is transmitting faithfully  
the meaning of  the ,hebrew text4       

,knowledge of ,god in the ,hebrew ,old  
,testament is  something far more than a
 mere intellectual achievement4 ,it is  
the  gift of ,god1 and it involves the  
entire emotional nature4      #aij ,von 
,harnack1 ,die ,terminologie der        
,wiedergeburt und verwandter            
,erlebnisse in der ltesten ,kirche1 in  
,texte und ,untersuchungen zur          
,geschichte der altchristlichen         
,literatur1 xlii1 #aiah1 pp4 #abh;f41   
,anm4 #a4    ,but may it not be objected
 that the ,pauline conception transcends
  that of the ,old ,testament in that in
 ,paul the knowledge of ,god  produces a
 transformation of human nature--the    
virtual deification  of man8 ,this      
question must be answered in the        
negative4 ,undoubtedly  the ,pauline    
conception does transcend that of the   
,old ,testament1  but not in the way    
which is here supposed4 ,the intimate   
relation  between the believer and the  
risen ,christ1 according to ,paul1 goes 
far beyond anything that was possible   

under the old dispensation4  ,it        
involves a fuller1 richer1 more intimate
 knowledge4 ,but the  experience in     
which ,paul saw the risen ,christ near  
,damascus was not  an end in itself1 as 
it would have been in the milieu of the 
mystery  religions2 it was rather a     
means to an end4#aia ,it was the        
divinely  appointed means by which ,paul
 was convinced of an historical fact1   
the resurrection of ,jesus1 and was led 
to appropriate the benefits  of that    
fact4 ,thus1 as ,oepke#aib has well     
observed1 ,paul does not  expect his    
converts all to see ,christ1 or even to 
have experiences  like that which is    
described in #b ,cor4 xii4 #b-d4 ,it is 
sufficient  for them to receive the     
historical account of ,christ's         
redeeming  work1 through the testimony  
of ,paul and of the other witnesses4    
,that  account1 transmitted by ordinary 
word of mouth1 is a sufficient  basis   
for faith2 and through faith comes the  
new life4 ,at this  point is discovered 

an enormous difference between ,paul and
 the  mystery religions4 ,in the mystery
 religions everything led up to  the    
mystic vision2 without that mystic      
vision there was no escape  from the    
miseries of the old life4 ,but according
 to ,paul1 the mighty  change was       
produced by the acceptance of a simple  
story1 an account  of what had happened 
only a few years before1 when ,jesus    
died and  rose again4 ,from the         
acceptance of that story there proceeds 
a new  knowledge1 a gnosis4 ,but this   
higher gnosis in ,paul is not the means 
of salvation1 as it is in the mystery   
religions2 it is only one  of the       
effects of salvation4 ,this difference  
is no mere matter of  detail4 ,on the   
contrary1 it involves a contrast between
 two entirely  different worlds of      
thought and life4      #aia ,oepke1 ,die
 ,missionspredigt des ,apostels ,paulus1
 #aibj1 p4 #ec4      #aib ,loc4 cit4    
,the message of ,paul1 then1 was a      
gospel1 a piece of news about  something

 that had happened4 ,as has well been   
observed1#aic the  characteristic ,new  
,testament words are the words that deal
 with  gospel1 teaching1 and the        
transmission of an historical message4  
,paul was not a gnostic1 but a witness2 
salvation1 according to his  teaching1  
came not through a mystic vision1 but   
through the hearing  of faith4#aid      
#aic ,heinrici1 ,die ,hermes-,mystik und
 das ,neue ,testament1 #aiah1    pp4    
#agh-ahj4      #aid ,compare ,oepke1 op4
 cit41 pp4 #dj;ff4    ,thus1 so far as  
the idea of knowledge is concerned1     
,reitzenstein  has not been successful  
in showing any dependence of ,paul upon 
the  mystery religions4 ,but how is it  
with regard to the doctrine of the      
,spirit8    ,in #a ,cor4 ii4 #ad1 #ae1  
the spiritual man is contrasted with the
  psychic man4 ,the spiritual man is the
 man who has the ,spirit of  ,god2 the  
psychic man is the man who has only a   
human soul4 ,it is not  really correct  
to say that the spiritual man1 according

 to ,paul1  is a man not who has the    
,spirit but who is the ,spirit4 ,paul   
avoids  such an expression for the same 
reason that prevents his speaking of    
the deification of the ,christian4      
,everywhere in ,paul the personal       
distinction between the believer and the
 ,christ who dwells in him is  carefully
 preserved4 ,his mysticism 7if the word 
may be used thus  loosely7 is never     
pantheistic4 ,here already is to be     
found a most  vital difference between  
,paul and ,hermes ,trismegistus4    ,but
 this observation constitutes a         
digression4 ,it is necessary  to return 
to #a ,cor4 ii4 #ad1 #ae4 ,the spiritual
 man1 according to  that passage1 is the
 man who has the ,spirit of ,god2 the   
psychic  man is the man who has only a  
human soul4 ,reitzenstein apparently    
insists that the only in this sentence  
should be left out4 ,the  psychic man1  
according to ,paul1 he says1 has a soul2
 the spiritual  man has no soul but has 
the divine ,spirit instead4 ,but such a 

representation is not really            
,pauline4#aie ,paul clearly teaches     
that the human soul continues to exist  
even after the divine  ,spirit has      
entered in4 ,the ,spirit himself1 he    
says1 beareth  witness with our spirit1 
that we are children of ,god 7,rom4     
viii4  #af74 ,here our spirit clearly   
means our soul1 and is expressly        
distinguished from the divine ,spirit4  
,at every point1 then1 the  attempt to  
find a pantheistic mysticism in ,paul   
breaks down before  the intensely       
personal character of his religion4 ,the
 relation of  ,paul to the risen        
,christ1 intimate as it is1 mediated as 
it is by  the all-pervasive ,spirit1 is 
a relation of one person to another4    
#aie ,see especially ,vos1 ,the         
,eschatological ,aspect of the ,pauline 
,conception of the ,spirit1 in ,biblical
 and ,theological ,studies by    the    
,members of the ,faculty of ,princeton  
,theological ,seminary1 #aiab1    pp4   
#bdh-bej4    ,but it is still necessary 

to return to the ,pauline contrast      
between  the spiritual man and the      
psychic man4 ,reitzenstein lays great   
stress upon that contrast4 ,he regards  
it as lying at the heart of  ,paul's    
religion1 and he thinks that he can     
explain it from the  ,hellenistic       
mystery religions4 ,apparently the      
method of ,reitzenstein  can be tested  
at this point if it can be tested at    
all4 ,if it does  not succeed in        
explaining the ,pauline doctrine of the 
,spirit1 upon  which the chief stress is
 laid1 probably it will explain nothing 
at  all4    ,at first sight the material
 adduced by ,reitzenstein is impressive4
  ,it is impressive by its very bulk4   
,the reader is led by the learned       
investigator into many new and          
entrancing fields4 ,surely after so     
long a journey the traveler must arrive 
at last at his desired  goal4 ,but      
somehow the goal is never reached4 ,all 
of ,reitzenstein's  material1 strange to
 say1 seems to prove the exact opposite 

of what  ,reitzenstein desires4         
,reitzenstein desires apparently to     
explain the ,pauline use of the         
adjectives psychic and spiritual#aif in 
#a ,cor4 ii4 #ad1 #ae2  apparently he is
 quite sure that the usage finds its    
sufficient  basis in ,hermes            
,trismegistus and related sources4 ,but 
the plain  fact--almost buried though it
 is under the mass of irrelevant        
material--is that the adjective psychic 
and the adjective  spiritual occur each 
only once in the sources which are      
examined1  and that they never occur1 as
 in #a ,cor4 ii4 #ad1 #ae1 in contrast  
with each other4#aig ,what is even far  
more disconcerting1 however1  is that   
the noun spirit#aih is not used         
7certainly not used  ordinarily7 in     
contrast with soul1#aii as ,paul uses   
it4 ,certainly  it is not so used       
ordinarily in the ,hermetic writings4   
,on the  contrary1 in ,hermes the spirit
 appears1 in certain passages1 not as   
something that is higher than the soul1 

but as something that is  lower4        
,apparently the common ,greek           
materialistic use of pneuma to  indicate
 breath or wind or the like is here     
followed4 ,at any  rate1 the terminology
 is as remote as could be imagined from 
that of  ,paul4 ,there is absolutely no 
basis for the ,pauline contrast between 
the human soul and the divine           
,spirit4#bjj      #aif  and 4      #aig 
,on the occurrence of  at the beginning 
of ,dieterich's    ,mithras ,liturgy    
7line #bd71 see ,bousset1 ,kyrios       
,christos1 #aiac1    p4 #ada1 ,anm4 #a4 
,on the occurrence of 1 see             
,reitzenstein1    ,hellenistische       
,mysterienreligionen1 #bte ,aufl41      
#aibj1 p4 #afb4    ,compare ,bousset1   
,jesus der ,herr1 #aiaf1 pp4 #hj;f4     
#aih 4      #aii 4      #bjj ,for this  
whole subject1 see especially the       
comprehensive    monograph of ,burton   
7,spirit1 ,soul1 and ,flesh1 #aiah71    
with the    summary on pp4 #bje-bjg4    
,it might be supposed that this fact    

would weaken ,reitzenstein's  devotion  
to his theory4 ,but such is not the     
case4 ,if1 says  ,reitzenstein1 ,spirit 
in ,hermes ,trismegistus does not       
indicate  something higher than soul1   
that is because the original popular    
terminology has here suffered           
philosophical revision4 ,the popular    
term spirit has been made to give place 
to the more philosophical  term         
mind4#bja ,where ,hermes says mind1     
therefore1 it is only  necessary to     
restore the term spirit1 and an         
admirable basis is  discovered for the  
,pauline terminology4 ,but how does     
,reitzenstein  know that the popular1   
unphilosophical term in the mystery     
religions  was spirit1 rather than mind 
or the like8 ,the extant pagan  sources 
do not clearly attest the term spirit in
 the sense which  is here required4     
,apparently then the only reason for    
positing the  existence of such a term  
in pagan mystery religion is that it    
must  have existed in pagan mystery     

religion if the ,pauline use of it is   
to be explained4 ,it looks1 therefore1  
as though the learned argument  of      
,reitzenstein had been moving all the   
time in a circle4 ,after  pursuing a    
roundabout course through many centuries
 and many races  of men1 after acquiring
 boundless treasures of curious         
information1  after impressing the whole
 world with the learning thus acquired1 
the explorer arrives at last at the     
exact point where he started1  and no   
richer than when he first set out6 ,the 
,pauline terminology  cannot be         
explained except as coming from the     
mystery religions2  therefore1 says     
,reitzenstein in effect1 it must have   
had a place  in the mystery religions   
even though the extant sources provide  
no  sufficient evidence of the fact4#bjb
      #bja       #bjb ,see ,burton1 op4 
cit41 p4 #bjf3 ,for the ,pauline        
exaltation of     over  there is no     
observed previous parallel4 ,it marks an
    advance on ,philo1 for which there  

is no precedent in non-,jewish          
,greek1 and only partial and imperfect  
parallels in the magical    papyri4 ,it 
is the reverse of ,hermetic usage4      
,but is there not some way out of the   
vicious circle8 ,is there not  some     
witness to the terminology which is     
required8 ,the investigator  turns      
naturally to ,philo4 ,philo is thought  
to be dependent upon  the mysteries2    
perhaps he will attest the required     
mystical use  of the term spirit4 ,but1 
alas1 ,philo apparently deserts his     
friends4 ,except where he is influenced 
by the ,old ,testament use  of the word 
spirit1 he seems to prefer other        
terminology4#bjc  ,his terminology1     
then1 like that of ,hermes must be      
thought to have  suffered philosophical 
reversal4 ,and still the required       
mystery  terminology eludes the eye of  
the investigator4      #bjc ,see        
,bousset1 ,kyrios ,christos1 pp4 #ach1  
#adj1 #ada 7,anm4 #b74    ,of course    
there is one place where the terms      

,spirit and  spiritual are exalted above
 the terms psyche and psychic1  in quite
 the manner that is desired4 ,that place
 is found in the  ,christian ,gnosticism
 of the second century4 ,but the        
,gnostics of the  second century are    
plainly dependent upon ,paul2 they vie  
with the  ,catholic ,church in their    
appeal to the ,pauline ,epistles4 ,the  
origin  of their use of the terms       
psychic and spiritual is therefore  only
 too plain4 ,at least it might seem to  
be plain4 ,but ,reitzenstein  rejects   
the common view4#bjd ,according to      
,reitzenstein1 the  ,gnostics have      
derived their usage not from ,paul but  
from the  pre-,pauline mystery          
religions2 and the ,gnostic usage of    
,spirit as  higher than soul is the     
source of the ,hermetic usage of soul as
  higher than spirit1 which1            
,reitzenstein believes1 has been derived
  from it by philosophical revision4    
,but the argument is beyond  the reach  
even of ,j4 ,kroll1 who cannot be       

accused of theological  interest4 ,as   
has already been observed1 ,kroll       
insists that the  ,gnostic usage is here
 secondary4#bje      #bjd ,also         
,bousset1 op4 cit41 pp4 #adj;f4         
,according to ,bousset1 it    is        
unlikely that the few and difficult     
terminological explanations    of ,paul 
444 should have exerted such extensive  
influence upon the    most diverse      
,gnostic systems4 ,but is the teaching  
of ,paul about the    ,spirit as higher 
than the soul really obscure8 ,does it  
not appear    plainly all through the   
,epistles8      #bje ,see above1 p4     
#bdi1 with footnote #b4    ,one argument
 remains4 ,the trouble1 from            
,reitzenstein's point of  view1 is that 
when the ,hermetic writings ought1 in   
the interests of  the theory1 to say    
,spirit they actually say mind4 ,it     
becomes  necessary1 therefore1 to prove 
that mind means the same thing as       
spirit4 ,a proof is found by            
,reitzenstein in ,paul himself1 in ,i   

,cor4 ii4 #ae1 #af4 ,but the spiritual  
man1 says ,paul1 examines all  things1  
but he himself is examined by none4 ,for
 'who hath known the  mind of the ,lord1
 that he should instruct ,him8' ,but we 
have the  mind of ,christ4 ,here1 says  
,reitzenstein1#bjf the possession of    
the mind of ,christ makes a man a       
spiritual man1 that is1 a man  who has  
the ,spirit4 ,hence mind is the same    
thing as spirit4  ,hence--such1 at      
least1 would seem to be the only        
inference from the  passage in ,i       
,corinthians which would really         
establish ,reitzenstein's  theory--when 
,hermes ,trismegistus says mind1 it is  
legitimate to  substitute spirit in     
order thus to find the basis for the    
ordinary  ,pauline terminology4         
#bjf ,hellenistische                    
,mysterienreligionen1 #bte ,aufl41      
#aibj1 pp4    #ahi;f4    ,but it is by  
no means clear that mind in ,i ,cor4 ii4
 #af;b is the  same as spirit4 ,if a man
 has the ,spirit of ,christ1 he also has

  the mind of ,christ2 the ,spirit gives
 him an understanding of the  thoughts  
of ,christ4 ,conversely1 the possession 
of the mind of  ,christ is a proof that 
the man has the ,spirit of ,christ2 it  
is only  the ,spirit who could have     
given him his understanding of ,christ's
  thoughts4 ,but it does not follow by  
any means that the term mind  means the 
same thing as the term spirit4          
,moreover1 the passage is  entirely     
isolated2 and the choice of the unusual 
word mind may be  due to the form of the
 ,septuagint passage which ,paul is     
citing4    ,at any rate1 the plain fact 
is that the terminology in ,hermes      
,trismegistus and related sources is    
strikingly different from that  of      
,paul4 ,reitzenstein finds himself in   
the peculiar position of  proving that  
,paul is dependent upon pagan sources by
 the fact that  the ,pauline terminology
 does not occur in the pagan sources4   
,it will  not do for him to say that the
 terminology is of little importance    

and that the ideas of ,paul1 if not the 
terminology1 are derived from  the pagan
 mysteries4 ,for it is just             
,reitzenstein who insists upon  the     
importance of words as the vehicle of   
ideas4 ,his fundamental  argument is    
that ,paul used the terminology of the  
mystery religions1  and with the        
terminology received also the ideas4 ,it
 is therefore  important to observe that
 ,reitzenstein's lexical parallel       
utterly  breaks down4    ,but if the    
,pauline doctrine of the ,spirit was not
 derived from  the pagan mystery        
religions1 whence was it derived8 ,the  
answer  is perfectly plain4 ,it was     
derived ultimately from the ,old        
,testament4#bjg ,unquestionably1 indeed1
 it goes far beyond the  ,old           
,testament1 and the enrichment of its   
content may conceivably  be explained in
 various ways4 ,the ,gospels and ,acts  
explain the  enrichment as due partly to
 the teaching of ,jesus ,himself and to 
the coming of the ,spirit on the day of 

,pentecost4 ,this explanation  will be  
rejected for the most part by           
naturalistic criticism4 ,paul  explains 
the enrichment as due partly to the     
experience which he  had of the presence
 of ,christ4 ,this explanation is       
regarded as no  explanation at all by   
the school of comparative religion4 ,but
 it is  not necessary in the present    
connection to discuss these matters4    
,all that needs to be observed now is   
that the basis for the ,pauline         
doctrine of the ,spirit is found in the 
,old ,testament4      #bjg ,bousset 7op4
 cit41 p4 #ada1 ,anm4 #b7 admits that   
the    terminology of ,paul1 especially 
his use of the term ,spirit instead     
of mind and his use of the terms in the 
contrast between ,spirit    and flesh   
may possibly be due partly to the ,old  
,testament1 but    insists that such    
terminological influence does not touch 
the    fundamentals of the thought4     
,such admissions are important1 despite 
the way in which ,bousset qualifies     

them4    ,in the ,old ,testament1 the   
,spirit of ,god is represented as       
distinct  from man and higher than man2 
there is no question in the ,old        
,testament of a usage by which the      
,spirit is degraded1 as in ,hermes      
,trismegistus1 below the soul4 ,in the  
,old ,testament1 moreover1 the  ,spirit 
is regarded as bestowing supernatural   
gifts such as prophecy  and producing   
supernatural experiences--exactly as in 
,paul4 ,but the  fruit of the ,spirit   
according to the ,old ,testament is     
something more  than prophecy or any    
momentary experience2 it is also a      
permanent  possession of the soul4 ,take
 not thy holy ,spirit from me1 says  the
 ,psalmist4 7,ps4 li4 #aa47 ,let the    
student first examine the  labored      
arguments of ,reitzenstein1 let him     
examine the few faint  approaches to the
 ,pauline terminology which have been   
gleaned from  pagan sources1 mostly late
 and of uncertain origin1 let him       
observe  that just where ,greek usage   

approaches ,paul most closely in form   
7as  in the divine ,spirit of           
,menander71#bjh it is most diametrically
  opposed in content1 let him reflect   
that the influence of pagan  usage is   
contrary to ,paul's own consciousness4  
,and then let him turn  to the ,old     
,testament6 ,let him remember that the  
,pauline use of the  ,old ,testament is 
no matter of conjecture1 but is attested
 everywhere  in the ,epistles4 ,and let 
him examine the ,old ,testament usage in
  detail4 ,the ,pauline terminology--the
 ,holy ,spirit1 the ,spirit  of ,god--so
 signally lacking in early pagan        
sources1#bji appears  here in all its   
richness2 and with the terminology go   
the depths of  life4 ,in turning from   
,hermes to the ,hebrew ,scriptures1 the 
student  has turned away from ,stoic    
pantheism1 away from the polytheism of  
the mystery religions1 away from the    
fantastic speculations of a  decadent   
philosophy1 to the presence of the      
personal ,god4 ,and1 in  doing so1 he   

has found the origin of the religion of 
,paul4      #bjh ,see ,burton1 op4 cit41
 pp4 #aad-aaf4      #bji ,burton1 op4   
cit41 pp4 #agc-age1 #ahg;f4    ,thus the
 lexical argument of ,reitzenstein      
breaks down at the  decisive points4 ,it
 would indeed be rash to assert that    
,paul  never uses a term derived from   
the pagan mysteries4 ,for example1  in  
,phil4 iv4 #ab he uses the verb that    
means to be initiated4  ,in everything  
and in all things ,i have been          
initiated1 he says1  both to be filled  
and to suffer hunger1 both to abound and
 to be  in want4 ,but this example shows
 clearly how little importance is       
sometimes to be attributed to the       
ultimate derivation of a word4  ,the    
word initiate is here used in a purely  
figurative way4 ,it is  doubtful whether
 there is the slightest thought of its  
original  significance4 ,the word has   
been worn down by repeated use almost as
  much as1 for example1 the word which  
means supply in ,gal4 iii4  #e4         

,etymologically that word means to be   
the leader of a chorus4  ,it referred   
originally to the ,athenian custom by   
which a wealthy  citizen undertook to   
defray the cost of the chorus at one of 
the  dramatic festivals4 ,but later it  
was used to designate any act of        
bountiful supplying4 ,and when it was   
used by ,paul1 its origin was  entirely 
forgotten4 ,it would be ridiculous to   
make ,paul say that  in bestowing the   
,spirit upon the ,galatian ,christians  
,god acted  as the leader of a chorus4  
,it is not essentially different with   
the verb meaning to be initiated in     
,philippians4 ,in both cases1  an       
institution of ancient ,hellenic        
life--in the former case1 the  religious
 festivals1 in the latter case1 the     
mysteries--has given  rise to the use of
 a word1 which found its way into the   
,greek  world-language of the           
,hellenistic age1 and continued to be   
used even  where there was no thought of
 its ultimate origin4    ,this example  

is instructive because the context in   
the ,philippians  passage is plainly    
free from all mystical associations4    
,plainly1  therefore1 the use of a word 
derived from the mysteries does not     
necessarily indicate any agreement with 
the mystical point of view4  ,indeed1 it
 may perhaps indicate the exact         
opposite4 ,if the idea  to initiate had 
associations connected with the center  
of ,paul's  religious life1 it is       
perhaps doubtful whether ,paul could    
have used  the word in so purely        
figurative a way1 just as he would not  
have  used the word meaning to be the   
leader of a chorus in referring to      
,god's bestowal of the ,spirit1 if he   
had had the slightest thought of  the   
,athenian festivals4    ,if1 then1 it   
should appear that ,paul uses a         
vocabulary derived from  the mysteries1 
the fact would not necessarily be of any
 significance  whatever in determining  
the origin of his religion4 ,every      
missionary  is obliged to take the words

 which have been used in the religion   
from which converts are to be won in    
order to express the new ideas4         
,translators of the ,bible in the modern
 mission fields are obliged  to proceed 
in this way4 ,yet the procedure does not
 necessarily  involve any modification  
of ,christian ideas4 ,the old words are 
given  loftier meanings in order to     
become the vehicle of ,christian truth2 
the original meanings provide merely a  
starting-point for the new  teaching4   
,conceivably1 the apostle ,paul might   
have proceeded in this  way2 conceivably
 he might have used words connected with
 the mystery  religions in order to     
proclaim the gospel of ,christ4    ,as a
 matter of fact1 the evidence for such  
an employment of a  mystery terminology 
in the ,pauline ,epistles is very       
slight4 ,in  #a ,cor4 ii4 #f1 #g1 ,paul 
uses the terms mystery and perfect or   
full-grown4#baj ,the former word was    
sometimes used to designate  the        
mysteries in the technical1 religious   

sense4 ,but it is also  used in ,greek  
in a very much more general way4 ,and   
certainly as it  is used in ,paul it is 
very remote from the technical meaning4 
,the  ,christian mystery according to   
,paul is not something that is to  be   
kept secret on principle1 like the      
mysteries of ,eleusis1 but it  is       
something which1 though it was formerly 
hidden in the counsels  of ,god1 is now 
to be made known to all4 ,some1 it is   
true1 may never  be able to receive it4 
,but that which is necessary in order   
that  it may be received is not gnosis  
or an initiation4 ,it is rather         
acceptance of a message and the holy    
life that follows4 ,if you  would know  
the deep things of ,god1 ,paul says to  
the ,corinthians1  then stop your       
quarreling4 ,we find ourselves here in a
 circle of  ideas quite different from  
that of the mystery religions4 ,as for  
the word teleios1 it seems not to have  
been discovered in pagan  sources in the
 sense of initiated1 which is sometimes 

attributed  to it in #a ,corinthians4   
,apparently it means simply full-grown2 
,paul contrasts the full-grown man with 
the babes in ,christ4      #baj  and 4  
,on the whole1 it seems improbable that 
the converts of ,paul1 in  any great    
numbers1 had lived in the atmosphere of 
the mystery  religions4#baa ,at any     
rate1 ,paul certainly does not use the  
technical vocabulary of the mysteries4  
,that fact has been amply  demonstrated 
by ,von ,harnack in the illuminating    
study which he has  devoted to the      
terminology of the new birth4#bab ,the  
earliest  genuine technical term in the 
vocabulary of the early ,church1 ,von   
,harnack believes1 is illumination1 as  
,justin ,martyr uses it to  designate   
baptism4 ,certainly in the earlier      
period1 there is not the  slightest     
evidence of any such fixity in the use  
of terms as would  have appeared if the 
,new ,testament writers had adopted a   
technical  vocabulary4      #baa ,oepke1
 ,die ,missionspredigt des ,apostels    

,paulus1 #aibj1 p4 #bf4      #bab ,von  
,harnack1 ,die ,terminologie der        
,wiedergeburt und verwandter            
,erlebnisse in der ltesten ,kirche1 in  
,texte und ,untersuchungen zur          
,geschichte der altchristlichen         
,literatur1 xlii1 #aiah1 pp4 #ig-adc4   
,see especially pp4 #aci-adc4           
,therefore1 if the dependence of ,paul  
upon the mystery religions  is to be    
demonstrated1 the lexical method of     
,reitzenstein must  be abandoned4 ,the  
terminology of ,paul is not derived from
 the  terminology of the mysteries4 ,but
 possibly1 it may be said1 although     
there is no clear dependence in the     
terminology1 the fundamental  ideas of  
,paul may still be shown to have come   
from the surrounding  paganism4 ,it is  
in this more cautious form that the     
hypothesis  is maintained by ,bousset3  
at least ,bousset is less inclined than 
,reitzenstein to lay stress upon verbal 
coincidences4#bac ,the entire  outlook  
of ,paul1 ,bousset believes1 regardless 

of the way in which  that outlook is    
expressed1 was derived from the mystical
 piety of  the ,hellenistic age2 it was 
from his pagan environment that ,paul   
derived the pessimistic estimate of     
human nature which is at the  basis of  
his teaching4      #bac ,but compare    
,jesus der ,herr1 #aiaf1 pp4 #hj-he4    
,at this point it may be admitted very  
freely that ,paul was convinced  of the 
insufficiency of human nature1 and that 
that conviction  was also prevalent in  
the paganism of the ,hellenistic age4   
,the  ,hellenistic age1 like ,paul1     
recognized the need of redemption2      
salvation1 it was believed1 could not be
 attained by unaided human  resources1  
but was a gift of higher powers4 ,but   
this similarity is  quite insufficient  
to establish any relationship of        
dependence4  ,both ,paulinism and the   
,hellenistic mystery religions were     
religions  of redemption4 ,but there    
have been many religions of redemption1 
in many ages and among many peoples1    

which have been entirely  independent of
 one another4 ,it will probably not be  
maintained1  for example1 that early    
,buddhism stood in any fundamental      
causal  relation to the piety of the    
,hellenistic age4 ,yet early ,buddhism  
was  a religion of redemption4    ,no   
attempt indeed should be made to        
underestimate the community  of interest
 which binds all redemptive religions   
together and  separates them sharply    
from all others4 ,common recognition of 
the  fundamental evil of the world is a 
far closer bond of union than  agreement
 about the details of conduct4 ,gautama 
under the tree of  knowledge in ,india1 
seeking in ascetic meditation for       
freedom from  the misery of existence1  
was inwardly far nearer to the apostle  
,paul than is many a modern liberal     
preacher who loves to read the  sixth   
chapter of ,ephesians in ,church4 ,but  
such community of interest  does not    
indicate any relation of dependence4 ,it
 might do so if the  sense of human     

inadequacy were an abnormal thing4 ,in  
that case1  the appearance of a         
pessimistic view of human nature would  
require  explanation4 ,but if human     
nature is really hopeless and helpless  
in  an evil world1 then the independent 
recognition of the fact by many  men of 
many minds is no longer cause for       
wonder4    ,historical judgments at this
 point1 then1 are apt to be influenced  
by the presuppositions of the           
investigator4 ,to ,bousset the whole    
notion of redemption is distasteful4 ,it
 seems to him to be an  abnormal1 an    
unhealthy thing4 ,to explain its        
emergence1 therefore1  in the course of 
human history he is prone to look for   
special  causes4 ,so he explains the    
,pauline doctrine of the radical evil   
of human nature as being due to the     
piety of a decadent age4 ,but  if this  
world is really an evil world1 as ,paul 
says it is1 then  recognition of the    
fact will appear spontaneously at many  
points4  ,for a time1 in an age of high 

achievements like the age of ,pericles1 
the fundamental problem of life may be  
forgotten4 ,but the problem is  always  
there and will force itself ever anew   
into the consciousness  of men4    ,at  
any rate1 whether desirable or not1 the 
longing for redemption  is a fundamental
 fact of history1 and may be shown to   
have emerged  independently at many     
points4 ,the character of ,paulinism as 
a  redemptive religion1 the ,pauline    
doctrine of human depravity1 is         
therefore insufficient to establish     
dependence of ,paul upon the  mystery   
religions of the ,hellenistic age4      
,dependence could be  established only  
by similarity in the form in which the  
doctrine  of depravity appears4 ,but as 
a matter of fact such similarity is     
strikingly absent4 ,the ,pauline use of 
the term flesh to denote  that in which 
evil resides can apparently find no real
 parallel  whatever in pagan usage4 ,and
 the divergence appears not only in     
terminology but also in thought4 ,at    

first sight there might seem  to be a   
parallel between the ,pauline doctrine  
of the flesh and the  ,greek doctrine of
 the evil of matter1 which appears in   
the ,orphic  sects1 then in ,plato and  
in his successors4 ,but the parallel    
breaks  down upon closer examination4   
,according to ,plato1 the body is evil  
because it is material2 it is the       
prison-house of the soul4 ,nothing      
could really be more remote from the    
thought of ,paul4 ,according to  ,paul1 
the connection of soul and body is      
entirely normal1 and the  soul apart    
from the body is in a condition of      
nakedness4 ,it is true1  the body will  
be changed at the resurrection or at the
 coming of  ,christ2 it will be made    
more adequate for the ,kingdom of ,god4 
,but  at any rate1 there is in ,paul no 
doctrine of the inherent evil of        
matter4 ,the real starting-point of the 
,pauline doctrine of the flesh  is to be
 found in the ,old ,testament1 in the   
passages where flesh  denotes human     

nature in its frailty4 ,certainly the   
,pauline teaching  is far more highly   
developed than the teaching of the ,old 
,testament4  ,but the ,old ,testament   
provides the starting-point4 ,the flesh 
in  ,paul1 when it is used in its       
developed1 ethical sense1 does not mean 
the material nature of man2 it includes 
rather all that man receives  by        
ordinary generation4 ,the contrast      
between flesh and ,spirit  therefore is 
not the contrast between matter and     
spirit2 it is a  contrast between human 
nature1 of which sin has taken          
possession1  and the ,spirit of ,god4   
,certainly1 at any rate1 whatever       
solution may be found for the  intricate
 problem of the ,pauline use of the term
 flesh1 the  ,pauline pessimism with    
regard to human nature is totally       
different  from the dualistic pessimism 
of the ,hellenistic age4 ,it is         
different  because it does not make evil
 reside in matter as such4 ,but it is   
different also in a far more fundamental

 way4 ,it is different in  its ethical  
character4 ,the ,hellenistic age was    
conscious of the  need of salvation2 and
 salvation1 it was recognized1 must come
 from  outside of man4 ,but this        
consciousness of need was not always1   
and not clearly1 connected with         
questions of right and wrong4 ,the      
,hellenistic age was conscious of       
inadequacy1 of slavery to fate1 of  the 
futility of human life as it is actually
 lived upon the earth4  ,here and there1
 no doubt1 there was also a recognition 
of existing  moral evil1 and a longing  
for a better life4 ,but such longings   
were almost submerged amidst longings of
 a non-ethical kind4 ,the  mysteries    
were cherished for the most part not    
because they offered  goodness but      
because they offered happiness4    ,in  
,paul1 on the other hand1 the           
consciousness of human inadequacy  is   
essentially a consciousness of sin4 ,and
 redemption is desired  because it      
satisfies the hunger and thirst after   

righteousness4 ,at  this point the      
contrast with the ,hellenistic mystery  
religions is  profound4 ,the religion of
 ,paul is like the mystery religions in 
that  it is a religion of redemption4   
,but there the similarity ceases4       
,there is certainly no such similarity  
in the conception of that  from which   
men are to be redeemed as would raise   
any presumption  of dependence in the   
presentation of the means of redemption4
 ,and  it is dependence in the          
presentation of the means of redemption 
which alone would serve to explain the  
origin of the religion of  ,paul4 ,it is
 unwarranted to argue that because ,paul
 agrees with the  mystery religions in a
 longing for redemption therefore he    
must have  derived from the mystery     
religions his method of satisfying the  
longing--namely his conception of the   
redemptive work of the ,lord  ,jesus    
,christ4 ,for even in the longing for   
redemption--to say nothing  of the way  
of satisfying the longing--,paul was    

totally different  from the mysteries4  
,the longing which was aroused in the   
devotees  of the mysteries was a longing
 for a happier immortality1 a freedom   
from the pressure of fate2 the longing  
which ,paul sought to arouse  in those  
for whom he labored was a longing for   
righteousness and for  acceptance by the
 righteous ,god4    ,this difference is 
intimately connected with a highly      
significant  fact--the presence in ,paul
 of a forensic view of salvation4       
,salvation1 according to ,paul1 is not  
only salvation from the  power of sin2  
it is also salvation from the guilt of  
sin4 ,not  only regeneration is needed1 
if a man is to be saved1 but also       
justification4 ,at this point1 there is 
apparently in the mystery  religions no 
parallel worthy of the name4 ,at least  
there is none  if ,reitzenstein's       
attempt to exhibit a parallel#bad is at 
all  adequate2 for ,reitzenstein has    
succeeded only in setting in clearer    
light the enormous difference at this   

point between ,paul and his  pagan      
environment4 ,the word justify appears1 
indeed1 in the  ,hermetic corpus 7xiii4 
#i71 but as ,reitzenstein himself       
observes1  it means not declare         
righteous but make righteous4 ,a        
parallel  with ,paul can be set up1     
therefore1 only if justify in ,paul also
  means make righteous4 ,reitzenstein   
actually finds such a meaning  in ,rom4 
vi4 #g1 and in ,rom4 viii4 #cj4 ,but the
 expedient is desperate  in the extreme4
 ,it will probably be unnecessary to    
review again the  absolutely            
overwhelming evidence by which the word 
justify in the  ,pauline ,epistles is   
shown to mean not make righteous but    
declare  righteous4 ,without the        
slightest question ,paul did maintain a 
forensic view of salvation4 ,the        
believer1 according to ,paul1 is in     
himself guilty in the sight of ,god4    
,but he is given a sentence of          
acquittal1 he is justified1 because     
,christ has borne on the cross  the     

curse of the ,law which rightly rested  
upon those whom ,christ  died to save4  
#bad ,reitzenstein1 ,die hellenistischen
 ,mysterienreligionen1 #bte    ,aufl41  
pp4 #aab-aaf4    ,the presence of this  
forensic element in the teaching of     
,paul is  universally or generally      
recognized2 and it is usually admitted  
to be not ,greek but ,jewish4 ,but there
 is a tendency among recent  scholars to
 minimize its importance4 ,according to 
,wrede1 the  forensic conception of     
salvation1 the complex of ideas         
centering  around justification apart   
from the works of the ,law1 was merely a
  weapon forged by ,paul in the         
exigencies of controversy4#bae ,against 
the ,judaizing contention for the       
continued validity of the ,law ,paul    
developed the doctrine that the penalty 
imposed by the ,law upon sin  was borne 
by ,christ1 so that for the believer the
 bondage of the ,law  is over4 ,but1    
,wrede believes1 this whole conception  
was of minor  importance in ,paul's own 

life2 it was merely necessary in order  
that he might refute the ,judaizers and 
so continue his free ,gentile  mission4 
,a somewhat similar view is advocated by
 ,bousset2 ,bousset  believes1 at least1
 that the forensic conception of        
salvation  occupies a subordinate place 
in the thought and life of ,paul4       
#bae ,kampfeslehre4 ,see ,wrede1        
,paulus1 #aijd1 pp4 #gb;ff4 7,english   
,translation1 ,paul1 #aijg1 pp4         
#abb;ff474    ,but there could be no    
greater mistake4 ,the doctrine of       
justification  by faith alone apart from
 the works of the ,law appears indeed in
  the ,epistle to the ,galatians as a   
weapon against the ,judaizers4 ,but  why
 was ,paul opposed to the ,judaizers in 
the first place8 ,certainly  it was not 
merely because the ,judaizing demand    
that ,gentile  ,christians should be    
circumcised and keep the ,law would     
interfere  in a practical way with the  
,gentile mission4 ,paul was not like    
some  modern leaders of the ,church1 who

 are interested in mere bigness2  he was
 not interested in the extension of the 
,church if such  extension involved the 
sacrifice of principle4 ,nothing could  
be more  utterly unhistorical than the  
representation of ,paul as a practical  
missionary1 developing the doctrine of  
justification by faith in  order to get 
rid of a doctrine of the ,law which     
would be a hindrance  in the way of his 
,gentile mission4 ,such a representation
 reverses  the real state of the case4  
,the real reason why ,paul was devoted  
to  the doctrine of justification by    
faith was not that it made possible  the
 ,gentile mission1 but rather that it   
was true4 ,paul was not  devoted to the 
doctrine of justification by faith      
because of the  ,gentile mission2 he was
 devoted to the ,gentile mission because
 of  the doctrine of justification by   
faith4 ,and he was opposed to the       
,judaizers1 not merely because they     
constituted a hindrance in the  way of  
the ,gentile work1 but because they made

 the cross of ,christ  of none effect4  
,if righteousness is through the law1   
then ,christ  died in vain 7,gal4 ii4   
#ba74 ,these words are at the very heart
 of  ,paul's life2 for they involve the 
,pauline doctrine of the grace of  ,god4
    ,there could be no greater error1   
therefore1 than that of  representing   
the ,pauline doctrine of justification  
by faith as  a mere afterthought1 as a  
mere weapon in controversy4 ,paul was   
interested in salvation from the guilt  
of sin no whit less than in  salvation  
from the power of sin1 in justification 
no whit less than  in the new creation4 
,indeed1 it is a great mistake to       
separate  the two sides of his message4 
,there lies the root error of the       
customary modern formula for explaining 
the origin of the ,pauline  theology4   
,according to that formula1 the forensic
 element in ,paul's  doctrine of        
salvation1 which centers in             
justification1 was derived  from        
,judaism1 and the vital or essential    

element which centers in  the new       
creation was derived from paganism4 ,in 
reality1 the two  elements are          
inextricably intertwined4 ,the sense of 
guilt was always  central in the longing
 for salvation which ,paul desired to   
induce in  his hearers1 and imparted to 
that longing an ethical quality which   
was totally lacking in the mystery      
religions4 ,and salvation in the        
,pauline churches consisted not merely  
in the assurance of a blessed           
immortality1 not merely in the assurance
 of a present freedom from  the bondage 
of fate1 not merely even in the         
possession of a new  power of holy      
living1 but also1 and everywhere1 in the
 consciousness  that the guilt of sin   
had been removed by the cross of        
,christ4    ,there is no affinity1      
therefore1 between the ,pauline doctrine
 of  salvation and that which is found  
in the mystery religions4 ,the          
terminology is strikingly different1 and
 the difference is even  greater in the 

underlying ideas4 ,paulinism is like the
 mystery  religions in being a religion 
of redemption1 but within the great     
category of redemptive religions there  
could be no greater contrast4    ,this  
conclusion might be overthrown if       
certain recent contentions  should prove
 to be correct with regard to the second
 of the  elements in ,paulinism which   
are being derived from pagan religion4  
,this second element is found in the    
,pauline doctrine of the  sacraments4   
,in the teaching of ,paul about baptism 
and the ,lord's  ,supper1 we are told1  
there is clearly to be observed the     
influence  of the mystery religions4    
,this contention depends partly upon the
 supposed nature of these  particular   
sacraments and partly upon the mere fact
 of the presence  of sacraments in the  
religion of ,paul4    ,with regard to   
the nature of these particular          
sacraments there  might seem at first   
sight to be a parallel with the mystery 
religions4 ,the mysteries usually had   

connected with them ablutions  of one   
kind or another and some sort of        
partaking of sacred food4  ,but it is   
singularly difficult to determine the   
meaning of these  practices4 ,the       
various ablutions which preceded the    
celebration  of the mysteries may have  
been often nothing more than symbols of 
cleansing2 and such symbolism is so     
natural that it might appear            
independently at many places4 ,it       
appears1 for example1 highly  developed 
among the ,jews2 and in the baptism of  
,john the ,baptist  it assumes a form   
far more closely akin to ,christian     
baptism than  in the washings which were
 connected with the pagan mysteries4    
,the evidence for a sacramental         
significance of the ablutions in  the   
mysteries1 despite confident assertions 
on the part of some  modern writers1 is 
really very slight4 ,most interesting1  
perhaps1  of all the passages which have
 been cited is that which appears  in   
,pap4 ,par4 #dg1 a papyrus letter       

written in the second century  before   
,christ4#baf ,this passage may be       
translated as follows3  ,for you are    
untruthful about all things and the gods
 who are with  you likewise1 because    
they have cast you into great matter and
 we  are not able to die1 and if you see
 that we are going to be saved1  then   
let us be baptized4 ,it is possible to  
understand the death  that is referred  
to as the mystical death which would be 
attained  in the mysteries1 and to      
connect the baptism with that death and 
with the consequent salvation4 ,there   
would thus be a parallel1  external at  
least1 with the sixth chapter of        
,romans1 where ,paul  connects baptism  
with the death and resurrection of      
,christ4 ,but  the papyrus passage is   
hopelessly obscure1 and is capable of   
very  different interpretations4        
,moulton and ,milligan1 for example1    
take  the verb to be baptized1 in a     
purely figurative sense1 as meaning     
simply to be overwhelmed with           

calamities4#bag ,according to this      
interpretation the reference to the     
mysteries disappears altogether4  ,at   
any rate1 the passage1 if it does refer 
to the mysteries1 is  altogether        
isolated4 ,and in view of its extreme   
obscurity it should  not be made the    
basis of far-reaching conclusions4 ,what
 is now being  maintained is not that   
the washings which were connected with  
the  mysteries were never sacramental4  
,it is incautious to make such  sweeping
 negative assertions4 ,but so far as the
 pre-,pauline period  is concerned1 the 
evidence which has been adduced is1 to  
say the  least1 exceedingly scanty4 ,it 
has by no means been proved that in  the
 pre-,pauline mysteries1 baptism was    
connected closely with the  new         
birth4#bah      #baf ,see ,reitzenstein1
 op4 cit41 #bte ,aufl41 pp4 #he;f4 ,the 
passage    in the papyrus reads as      
follows 7,notices et extraits des       
manuscrits    de la bibliothque         
impriale1 xviii1 #ahfe1 p4 #cae73   1   

1      1           1  4 ,the letter is  
also    contained in ,witkowski1        
,epistulae privatae graecae1 #aijf1     
pp4 #fc-ff4      #bag ,moulton and      
,milligan1 ,the ,vocabulary of the      
,greek ,testament1    s4 v4 1 ,part ii1 
#aiae1 p4 #ajb4 ,similarly ,sethe1      
,sarapis1    in ,abhandlungen der       
kniglichen ,gesellschaft der            
,wissenschaften zu    ,gttingen1        
philologisch-historische ,klasse1 ,neue 
,folge1 xiv1 ,nro4    #e1 #aiac1 p4 #ea4
      #bah ,tertullian1 de bapt4 #e 7ed4
 ,reifferscheid et ,wissowa1 #ahij71    
it must be admitted1 connects baptism in
 heathen religion with    regeneration1 
and mentions the part which sacramental 
washings had    in the mysteries of     
,isis and of ,mithras1 and in           
,eleusinian rites4    ,despite the      
post-,pauline date of this testimony1   
the passage is    certainly interesting4
 ,compare ,kennedy1 op4 cit41 p4 #bbi4  
,with regard to the partaking of sacred 
food1 the evidence is in some  respects 

more abundant4 ,even in the mysteries of
 ,eleusis1 a special  significance seems
 to have been attributed to the drinking
 of the  kykeon2 and the initiates into 
the ,phrygian mysteries are reported  by
 ,clement of ,alexandria 7similarly     
,firmicus ,maternus7 to have  used a    
formula including the words1 ,i ate from
 the drum1 ,i drank  from the cymbal4   
,so far as the form of the act is       
concerned1 the  similarity to the       
,christian ,eucharist is here certainly 
not great2  there was eating and        
drinking in both cases1 but everything  
else1  so far as can be seen1 was       
different4 ,in the mysteries of ,mithras
  the similarity of form seems to have  
been greater2 the initiates  partook of 
bread and of a cup in a way which       
,justin ,martyr regarded  as a demoniac 
imitation of the ,christian sacrament4  
,according to  ,cumont1 moreover1 the   
,mithraic practice was clearly          
sacramental2  the initiates expected    
from their sacred banquet a supernatural

  effect4#bai ,but it will be remembered
 that considerations of date  render an 
influence of ,mithras upon ,paul        
exceedingly improbable4 ,and  the       
significance of the eating and drinking 
in connection with other  mysteries is  
obscure4 ,apparently these acts did not 
form a part of  the mysteries proper1   
but were only a preparation for them4   
#bai ,cumont1 ,textes et monuments      
figurs relatifs aux mystres de          
,mithra1 i1 #ahii1 p4 #cba4 ,see        
,heitmller1 ,taufe und ,abendmahl bei   
,paulus1 #aijc1 p4 #df1 ,anm4 #c4    ,in
 a very savage form of religion there   
appears the notion that men  could      
partake of the divine nature by actually
 eating the god4 ,for  example1 in the  
worship of ,dionysus1 the worshipers in 
the height of  religious frenzy tore in 
pieces the sacred bull and devoured the 
raw  flesh4 ,here the bull apparently   
represented the god himself4 ,this      
savage practice stands in external      
parallel with certain passages in  the  

,new ,testament1 not only with the      
references in ,john vi to the  eating of
 the flesh and drinking of the blood of 
,christ1 but also  7though less clearly7
 with the ,pauline teaching about the   
,lord's  ,supper4 ,in #a ,cor4 x4 #af   
,paul speaks of the cup of blessing as  
being communion of the blood of ,christ1
 and of the bread as being  communion of
 the body of ,christ4 ,have we not here 
a sublimated form  of the pagan notion  
of eating the god8 ,the supposition     
might seem  to be strengthened by the   
parallel which ,paul draws a few verses 
further on between the cup of the ,lord 
and the cup of demons1 and  between the 
table of the ,lord and the table of     
demons 7verse #ba71  the demons1 it is  
said1 being regarded by ,paul as        
identical with the  heathen gods4       
,but the trouble is that the savage     
notion of eating the god does  not seem 
to have survived in the ,hellenistic    
mystery religions4  ,at this point1     
therefore1 the student of comparative   

religion is  faced with a difficulty    
exactly opposite to that which appears  
in  most of the parallels which have    
been set up between the teaching  of    
,paul and pagan religion4 ,in most cases
 the difficulty is that  the pagan      
parallels are too late2 here1 on the    
contrary1 they are  too early4 ,if ,paul
 is dependent upon the pagan notion of  
eating the  god1 he must have deserted  
the religious practice which prevailed  
in  his own day in order to have        
recourse to a savage custom which had   
long since been abandoned4 ,the         
suggestion does not seem to be very     
natural4 ,it is generally admitted that 
even where ,christianity is  dependent  
upon ,hellenistic religion it represents
 a spiritualizing  modification of the  
pagan practice4 ,but at this point it   
would have  to be supposed that the     
,christian modification proceeded in    
exactly  the opposite direction2 far    
from marking a greater spiritualization 
of pagan practice1 it meant a return to 

a savage stage of religion  which even  
paganism had abandoned4    ,efforts are 
sometimes made to overcome this         
objection4 ,we observe  in the history  
of religion1 says ,heitmller1 that      
tendencies  connected with low stages of
 religious development1 which in  the   
higher stages were quiescent or extinct1
 suddenly spring  up again--of course in
 a modified form adapted to the changed 
circumstances4#bbj ,such general        
observations1 even if they are  based   
upon fact1 will hardly serve to render  
the present hypothesis  any more        
plausible4 ,dependence of the ,pauline  
teaching about the  ,lord's ,supper upon
 the savage notion of eating the god1   
when even  paganism had come to abandon 
that notion1 will always seem very      
unnatural4      #bbj ,heitmller1 ,taufe 
und ,abendmahl bei ,paulus1 #aijc1 p4   
#dg4    ,certainly the hypothesis is not
 supported by the parallel which ,paul  
draws in #a ,cor4 x4 #ba between the    
table of the ,lord and the table  of    

demons4 ,paul does not say that the     
heathen had fellowship with  their gods 
by partaking of them in a meal2 the     
fellowship with those  gods 7verse #bj7 
could be conceived of in other ways4    
,for example1  the cult god may have    
been conceived of in the sacrificial    
meals as  the host at a feast4 ,in point
 of fact1 such an idea was no doubt     
widely prevalent4 ,it is attributed to  
the ,phrygian mysteries1 for  example1  
by ,hepding1 who supposes that the      
eating from the drum and  drinking from 
the cymbal meant the entrance of the    
initiate into the  circle formed by the 
table-companions of the god4#bba ,at any
 rate1  the savage notion of eating the 
god is not clearly attested for the     
,hellenistic period1 and certainly      
dependence of ,paul upon such a  notion 
is unlikely in the extreme4      #bba   
,hepding1 ,attis1 #aijc1 pp4 #ahf;f4    
,no close parallel1 then1 can be        
established between the ,christian      
sacraments and the practices of the     

pagan cults4 ,but the very fact  that   
the ,pauline churches had sacraments at 
all--irrespective of  the form of the   
particular sacraments--may conceivably  
be made a  ground for connecting        
,paulinism with the ,hellenistic        
religions4  ,the argument depends upon  
one particular view of the ,pauline     
sacraments2 it depends upon the view    
that baptism and the ,lord's  ,supper   
were conceived of as conveying blessing 
not in virtue of the  disposition of    
soul with which they were administered  
or received  but in virtue of the       
sacramental acts themselves4 ,in other  
words  7to use traditional language71   
the argument depends upon the view  that
 the ,pauline sacraments conveyed their 
blessing not ex opere  operantis but ex 
opere operato4 ,in the ,pauline         
churches1 it is  argued1 the beginning  
of the new life and the communion with  
the  cult god were connected with       
certain ceremonial acts4 ,so it was also
  in the mystery religions4 ,therefore  

,paulinism is to be understood in       
connection with the mysteries4    ,but  
the interpretation of the ,pauline      
,epistles upon which this  hypothesis is
 based is fraught with serious          
difficulty4 ,did ,paul  really conceive 
of the sacraments as conveying their    
blessing ex  opere operato8 ,the general
 character of the ,epistles certainly   
points in an opposite direction4 ,an    
unprejudiced reader of the  ,epistles as
 a whole certainly receives the         
impression that the  writer laid        
extraordinarily little stress upon forms
 and ceremonies4  ,salvation according  
to ,paul was dependent solely upon      
faith1 the  simple acceptance of the    
offer contained in the message of the   
,cross4 ,any connection of such a       
religion with external forms seems  even
 to be excluded expressly by the        
,epistle to the ,galatians4 ,a          
dispensation of forms and ceremonies1   
according to that ,epistle1  belongs to 
the period of childish bondage from     

which ,christ has set  men free4    ,yet
 such a writer1 it is maintained1       
actually taught that the mere  act of   
baptism conveyed the blessing of a new  
life and the mere  partaking of food and
 drink conveyed the blessing of         
communion  with the risen ,christ4 ,the 
supposition seems at first sight to be  
preposterous4 ,if it is to be           
established1 it can only be on the      
basis of the clearest kind of evidence4 
,the evidence1 it should be noted at the
 start1 is at any rate  decidedly       
limited in extent4 ,it is only in the   
,first ,epistle to the  ,corinthians    
that ,paul mentions the ,lord's ,supper 
at all1 and it is  only in ,rom4 vi and 
,col4 ii4 #ab that baptism is connected 
with the  death and resurrection which  
the believer is said to have shared     
with ,christ4 ,the limited extent of the
 evidence may in itself be  significant4
 ,if ,paul held the high sacramentarian 
view of baptism  and the ,lord's        
,supper1 it seems a little strange that 

he should  have laid so little stress   
upon the sacraments4 ,high              
sacramentarians  of all ages have       
preserved a very different proportion4  
,it seems  still more strange1 perhaps1 
that ,paul should have said that        
,christ sent him not to baptize but to  
preach the gospel 7#a ,cor4 i4  #ag74   
,on the ex opere operato view of        
baptism1 baptism was the  highest       
possible function4 ,could an apostle who
 held that view  have attributed        
relatively so little importance to it8  
,in order to  appreciate how much less  
importance is attributed in the         
,epistles  to baptism and the ,lord's   
,supper than to certain other elements  
in  ,paul's teaching1 it is only        
necessary to compare the references to  
the sacraments with the references to   
faith4 ,the fact is perfectly  plain4   
,when ,paul speaks1 in the large1 about 
the way of salvation1  it never seems to
 occur to him to mention the sacraments2
 what he  does think of is the message  

of the gospel and the simple acceptance 
of it through faith4    ,these facts are
 sometimes admitted even by those who   
attribute a  high sacramentarian view of
 the sacraments to ,paul2 ,paulinism    
when  taken as a whole1 it is admitted1 
is certainly not a sacramentarian       
religion4 ,what has happened1 then1 it  
is supposed1 is that ,paul  has retained
 in the doctrine of the sacraments an   
element derived  from a lower type of   
religion1 an unassimilated remnant of   
the type  of religion which is          
represented by the mystery cults4 ,thus 
the  ,pauline doctrine of the sacraments
 is thought to introduce a glaring      
contradiction into the thought and life 
of ,paul4    ,can such a glaring        
contradiction be attributed to ,paul8   
,it could  probably be attributed to    
,hermes ,trismegistus4 ,but can it be   
attributed to ,paul8 ,the writer of the 
,pauline ,epistles was no mere          
compiler1 receiving unassimilated       
materials from many sources4 ,he  was a 

person of highly marked characteristics4
 ,and he was a person  of commanding    
intellect4 ,could such a writer have    
introduced a  glaring contradiction into
 the very center of his teaching8 ,could
 a  writer who in the great mass of his 
writing is triumphantly and even        
polemically anti-sacramentarian have    
maintained all along a crassly          
sacramentarian view of the way in which 
religious blessing was to be  obtained8 
,an affirmative answer to these         
questions could be rendered only on  the
 basis of positive evidence of the most 
unequivocal kind4 ,and  such positive   
evidence is not forthcoming4 ,the most  
that can by any  possibility be said for
 the strictly sacramentarian            
interpretation  of ,rom4 vi is that it  
is possible4 ,it might conceivably be   
adopted  if ,rom4 vi stood alone4 ,but  
as a matter of fact ,rom4 vi does  not  
stand alone2 it stands in the midst of a
 considerable body  of ,pauline         
,epistles4 ,and it must be interpreted  

in the light of  what ,paul says        
elsewhere4 ,if ,rom4 vi stood absolutely
 alone1 ,paul  might conceivably be     
thought to mean that the act of baptism 
in  itself involves a dying with ,christ
 and a rising with ,him to a new  life4 
,but the whole character of the ,pauline
 ,epistles absolutely  precludes such an
 interpretation4 ,and another           
interpretation does  full justice to the
 words as they stand4 ,that             
interpretation is the  obvious one which
 makes the act of baptism an outward    
sign of an  inner experience4 ,we were  
buried with him1 says ,paul1 through    
baptism unto death4 ,these words are    
pressed by the modern school of         
comparative religion very much as       
,luther at the ,marburg ,conference     
pressed the ,latin words of institution 
of the ,lord's ,supper4 ,luther  wrote  
on the table1 ,this is my body 7hoc est 
corpus meum71 and  would not hear of    
anything but the most literal           
interpretation of  the words4 ,so the   

modern school of comparative religion   
presses the  words through baptism in   
,rom4 vi4 #d4 ,we were buried with him  
through baptism1 says ,paul4 ,therefore1
 it is said1 since it was  through      
baptism1 it was not through faith1 or   
through any inner  disposition of the   
soul2 therefore the sacramentarian      
interpretation  is correct4 ,but if     
,luther's over-literalness1 fraught with
 such  disastrous consequences for the  
,church1 is deserted by most  advocates 
of the grammatico-historical method of  
exegesis1 should an  equally bald       
literalness be insisted upon in         
connection with ,rom4  vi4 #d8          
,interpreted in connection with the     
whole trend of the ,epistles1 the  sixth
 chapter of ,romans contains an appeal  
to the outward sign of  an inner        
experience4 ,it is perfectly natural    
that ,paul should here  appeal to the   
outward sign rather than to the inner   
experience4  ,paul desires to strengthen
 in his readers the conviction that the 

life which they are leading as          
,christians is a new life in which  sin 
can have no place4 ,unquestionably he   
might have appealed to  the faith which 
had been the means by which the new life
 had been  begun4 ,but faith is not     
something that can be seen4 ,baptism1 on
 the  other hand1 was a plain and       
obvious fact4 ,to use a modern term1 it 
visualized faith4 ,and it is just the   
visualizing of faith that  ,paul here   
desires4 ,when the ,roman ,christians   
were baptized1 they  were convinced that
 the act meant a dying with ,christ and 
a rising  with ,him2 it meant the       
beginning of their ,christian life4 ,it 
was a  solemn and a definite act4 ,it   
was something that could be seen as     
well as felt4 ,conceivably1 indeed1 the 
act in itself might have been           
unaccompanied by faith4 ,but in the     
early ,church such cases were no  doubt 
extremely rare4 ,they could therefore be
 left out of account  by ,paul4 ,paul   
assumes--and no doubt he is             

correct--that1 whatever  might          
conceivably have been the case1 as a    
matter of fact when any  one of the     
,roman ,christians was baptized he died 
and rose again  with ,christ4 ,but ,paul
 does not say that the dying and rising 
again  was produced by the external act 
otherwise than as that act was an       
expression of faith4 ,here1 however1 it 
is to the external act that  he appeals1
 because it is the external act which   
can be seen and can  be realized4 ,it   
can only be because the newness of the  
,christian  life is not realized that   
,christians can think of it as          
permitting a  continuance in sin4 ,what 
enables it to be realized is that which 
can  actually be seen1 namely1 the      
external and obvious fact of baptism4   
,in other words1 baptism is here made to
 discharge in typical fashion  its      
divinely appointed function as an       
external sign of an inner  experience1  
and an external sign which is made the  
vehicle of  special blessing4    ,a     

similar interpretation may be applied to
 all the references to  the sacraments  
which occur in the ,pauline ,epistles4  
,what sometimes  produces the impression
 of an ex opere operato conception of   
the  sacraments is that ,paul does not  
take into account the possibility  that 
the sacraments might be unaccompanied by
 faith4 ,so in ,gal4  iii4 #bg he says1 
,all ye who were baptized into ,christ  
did put on  ,christ4 ,these words if    
taken alone might mean that every man1  
whatever the condition of his soul1 who 
went through the external  form of      
baptism had put on ,christ4 ,but of     
course as a matter of  fact ,paul means 
nothing of the kind4 ,what he does mean 
is that the  baptism of the ,galatians1 
since that baptism was accompanied by   
faith 7,gal4 iii4 #b71 meant in that    
concrete case the putting on of         
,christ4 ,here again there is an appeal1
 in the presence of those who  were in  
danger of forgetting spiritual facts1 to
 the external sign  which no one could  

forget4    ,this interpretation cannot  
be invalidated by the passages which    
have been appealed to as supporting a   
crassly ex opere operato  conception of 
the sacraments4 ,in #a ,cor4 xi4 #cj1   
for example1 ,paul  says that because of
 an unworthy partaking of the ,lord's   
,supper many  of the ,corinthians were  
ill and many had died4 ,but these words 
need  not necessarily mean that the     
bread and wine1 because of a dangerous  
magical virtue that was in them1 had    
inflicted harm upon those who  had not  
used them aright4 ,they may mean at     
least equally well that  the physical   
ills of the ,corinthians were a         
chastisement which had  been inflicted  
by ,god4 ,as for #a ,cor4 xv4 #bi       
7baptism in behalf of  the dead71 it can
 be said at least that that verse is    
isolated and  exceedingly obscure1 and  
that it is bad historical method to     
allow  what is obscure to color the     
interpretation of what is plain4 ,many  
interpretations of the verse have been  

proposed4 ,and it is by no  means clear 
that ,paul lent his own support to the  
custom to which  reference is here made4
    ,thus it cannot be maintained that  
,paulinism was like the pagan  mysteries
 even in the general sense that both    
,paulinism and  the mysteries connected 
salvation with external acts4 ,the acts 
themselves were different2 and the      
meaning of the acts was still  more     
diverse4 ,an element of truth does      
indeed underlie the  sacramentarian     
interpretation of ,paul4 ,the element of
 truth consists  in the protest which is
 here raised against the interpretation 
which  has sometimes been favored by    
liberal scholars4 ,according to  this   
liberal interpretation1 when ,paul      
speaks of dying and rising  with ,christ
 he is referring to a purely ethical    
fact2 when he says  that he has died to 
the ,law1 he means that he has made a   
radical  break with an external1        
legalistic type of religion2 when he    
says  that it is no longer he that lives

 but ,christ that lives in him1  he     
means that he has made ,christ his      
supreme guide and example2  when he says
 that through the ,cross of ,christ he  
has been crucified  to the world1 he    
means that the ,cross has led him to    
renounce all  worldliness of purpose4   
,such interpretation is exceedingly     
common4  ,but it is radically false4 ,it
 is false because it does away with  the
 supernaturalism of ,paul's teaching4   
,there could be no greater  mistake than
 that of making salvation according to  
,paul an affair  of the human will4 ,on 
the contrary1 the very essence of       
,pauline  teaching is supernaturlism4   
,salvation1 according to ,paul1 is based
  upon a supernatural act of ,god--the  
resurrection of ,jesus ,christ4  ,and   
equally supernatural is the application 
of salvation to the  individual4 ,the   
new creation which stands at the        
beginning of the  ,christian life is    
according to ,paul just as little a     
product of  natural forces1 and just as 

little a product of the human will1 as  
the first creation was4 ,the modern     
school of comparative religion is       
entirely correct in insisting upon the  
thoroughgoing supernaturalism  of the   
,pauline gospel4 ,paulinism is a        
redemptive religion in the  most        
thoroughgoing sense of the word2 it     
finds salvation1 not in a  decision of  
the human will1 but in an act of ,god4  
,but the error comes in confusing       
supernaturalism with  sacramentalism4   
,paul's conception of salvation is      
supernatural1  but it is not external4  
,it is indeed just as supernatural as if
 it  were external4 ,the beginning of a 
man's ,christian life1 according  to    
,paul1 is just as little a product of   
his own moral forces1 just  as little a 
product of any mere moral influence     
brought to bear  upon him1 as it would  
be if it were produced by the water into
  which he was dipped or the bread and  
wine of which he partakes4  ,conceivably
 ,god might have chosen to use such     

means4 ,if ,he had done  so1 ,his action
 would have been not one whit more      
supernatural than  it actually is4 ,but 
as a matter of fact1 ,he has chosen1 in 
,his  mysterious wisdom1 to use the     
means of faith4 ,such is the teaching   
of ,paul4 ,it is highly distasteful to  
the modern liberal ,church4 ,but  even  
if it is to be rejected it should at    
least be recognized as  ,pauline4       
,thus the interpretation of the         
sacraments which is proposed by  the    
modern school of comparative            
religion--and indeed the whole  modern  
radical treatment of ,paulinism as a    
thoroughgoing religion  of              
redemption--marks a reaction against the
 modernizing exegesis  which was        
practised by the liberal school4 ,but   
the reaction has at  any rate gone too  
far4 ,it cannot be said that the newer  
exegesis is  any more objective than the
 liberal exegesis which it endeavors to 
replace4 ,the liberal scholars were     
concerned to keep ,paul as near  as     

possible to their modern naturalistic   
principles1 in order to  continue to use
 him for the edification of the ,church2
 the radical  scholars of the school of 
comparative religion are concerned  to  
keep him as far away as possible from   
modern naturalistic  principles in order
 to bring him into connection with the  
crass  externalism of the mystery       
religions4 ,neither group has attained  
the whole truth4 ,the ,pauline          
conception of salvation is just as      
spiritual as it is thought to be by the 
liberal scholars2 but on the  other     
hand1 it is just as supernatural as it  
is represented as being  by             
,reitzenstein and ,bousset4             
,,chapter ,,viii    ,,the ,,lordship    
,,of ,,jesus          ,,chapter ,,viii  
,,the ,,lordship ,,of ,,jesus      ,two 
of the contentions of the modern school 
of comparative religion  have so far    
been examined4 ,it has been shown that  
neither the group  of ,pauline          
conceptions which centers around the new

 birth 7or1 as  ,paul calls it1 the new 
creation7 nor the ,pauline teaching     
about the  sacraments was derived from  
the mystery religions4 ,the third       
element  of ,paulinism which is thought 
to have come from pagan religion is     
found in the ,pauline conception of     
,christ and of the work of ,christ  in  
redemption4 ,this contention is         
connected especially with the  name of  
,bousset#bbb1 who is1 however1 supported
 in essentials by  a considerable number
 of contemporary scholars4 ,the         
hypothesis of  ,bousset is intimately   
connected with those hypotheses which   
have  already been examined4 ,a complete
 treatment of it at this point  would   
therefore involve repetition4 ,but it   
may here be set forth at  least in a    
somewhat systematic1 though still in a  
merely summary1  way4      #bbb ,kyrios 
,christos1 #aiac2 ,jesus der ,herr1     
#aiaf4    ,according to ,bousset1 the   
primitive ,christian community in       
,jerusalem  regarded ,jesus chiefly as  

the ,son of ,man--the mysterious person1
  mentioned in the ,jewish apocalypses1 
who was finally to come with  the clouds
 of heaven and be the instrument in     
ushering in the  ,kingdom of ,god4      
,bousset is doubtful whether or no the  
title ,son of  ,man was ever assumed by 
,jesus ,himself1 and regards the        
settlement  of this question as lying   
beyond the scope of his book4 ,but the  
tendency of the book is decidedly toward
 a radical denial of the  ,messianic    
consciousness of ,jesus4 ,and at this   
point the cautious  investigator1 even  
if his presuppositions are the same as  
,bousset's  own1 may well be inclined to
 take alarm4 ,the method which is here  
pursued seems to be leading logically to
 the elimination from  the pages of     
history of the whole ,gospel picture of 
,jesus1 or  rather to the use of that   
picture in the reconstruction not of the
  historical ,jesus1 but only of the    
belief of the ,christian community4  ,of
 course ,bousset does not push matters  

to such lengths2 he is  by no means     
inclined to follow ,w4 ,b4 ,smith and   
,drews in denying  the historicity of   
,jesus4 ,but the reader of the first    
part of the  ,kyrios ,christos has an   
uneasy feeling that if any of the       
,gospel  picture still escapes the keen 
edge of ,bousset's criticism1 it is     
only by accident4 ,many of those        
incidents in the ,gospel narrative1     
many of those elements in the ,gospel   
teaching1 which have been  considered   
most characteristic of the historical   
,jesus have here  been removed4 ,there  
seems to be no particular reason why the
 rest  should remain2 for the elements  
that remain are quite similar to the    
elements that have been made to go4 ,no 
mark of authenticity seems to  be proof 
against the skepticism of this latest   
historian4 ,bousset  thus illustrates   
the difficulty of separating the natural
 from the  supernatural in the ,gospel  
picture of ,jesus4 ,when the process of 
separation begins1 it is difficult to   

bring it to a halt2 the wheat  is in    
danger of being rooted up with the      
tares4 ,bousset has dealt a  severe blow
 to the prestige of the liberal         
reconstruction of ,jesus4  ,by the      
recent developments in his thinking he  
has shown by his own  example that the  
liberal reconstruction is in a state of 
unstable  equilibrium4 ,it is always in 
danger of giving way to radical denial  
either of the historicity of ,jesus or  
of the historicity of the  ,messianic   
consciousness4 ,such radicalism is faced
 by insuperable  difficulties4 ,perhaps1
 then1 there is something wrong with the
  critical method from which the        
radicalism always tends to result4      
,but it is necessary now to examine a   
little more closely the belief  of the  
primitive ,jerusalem ,church4 ,that     
belief1 ,bousset maintains1  did not    
involve any conception of ,jesus as     
,lord4 ,the title ,lord1  he says1 was  
not applied to ,jesus on ,palestinian   
ground1 and ,jesus  was not regarded by 

the early ,jerusalem ,church as the     
object of  faith4 ,the piety of the     
primitive ,church was thus exclusively  
eschatological2 ,jesus was expected to  
return in glory from heaven1  but       
meanwhile ,he was regarded as separated 
from ,his disciples4 ,he  was the       
heavenly ,son of ,man1 to come with the 
clouds of heaven1  not the ,lord now    
present in the ,church4    ,these       
momentous assertions1 which lie at the  
very basis of ,bousset's  hypothesis1   
are summed up in the elimination from   
,jerusalem  ,christianity of the title  
,lord as applied to ,jesus4 ,this       
elimination of the title ,lord of course
 involves a rejection of  the testimony 
of ,acts4 ,the ,book of ,acts contains  
the only extant  narrative of the early 
progress of ,jerusalem ,christianity4   
,and so  far as the designations of     
,christ are concerned1 the early        
chapters  of the book have usually been 
thought to produce an impression  of    
special antiquity and authenticity4     

,these chapters apply the  title ,lord  
to ,jesus2 the words in ,acts ii4 #cf1  
,god has made  him both ,lord and       
,christ1 have often been regarded as    
especially  significant4 ,but to        
,bousset1 in view of his opinion about  
the ,book  of ,acts as a whole1 the     
elimination of this testimony causes no 
difficulty4    ,but how does ,bousset   
know that the primitive ,jerusalem      
,church did  not apply the term ,lord to
 ,jesus8 ,the principal argument is     
derived from an examination of the      
,synoptic ,gospels4 ,the title  ,lord1  
as applied to ,jesus1 ,bousset believes1
 appears only on the  margin 7as it     
were7 of the ,gospel tradition2 it does 
not appear as  one of the primitive     
elements in the tradition4 ,but since it
 does  not appear firmly fixed in the   
,gospel tradition1 it could not have    
formed a part of ,christian belief in   
the community where the ,gospel         
tradition was formed4 ,the community    
where the ,gospel tradition was  formed 

was the ,jerusalem ,church4 ,therefore  
the title ,lord as applied  to ,jesus   
did not form part of the belief of the  
,jerusalem ,church4  ,such1 in bare     
outline1 is the argument of ,bousset4   
,an examination of that argument in     
detail would far transcend the  limits  
of the present discussion4#bbc ,but     
certain obvious remarks  can be made4   
#bbc ,see ,vos1 ,the ,kyrios ,christos  
,controversy1 in ,the ,princeton        
,theological ,review1 xv1 #aiag1 pp4    
#ba-hi4 ,see also the review of         
,bousset's ,kyrios ,christos by the same
 author1 ibid41 xii1 #aiad1    pp4      
#fcf-fde4    ,in the first place1 it is 
not perfectly clear that the title      
,lord appears only in secondary elements
 of the ,gospel tradition4  ,certainly  
it must be granted to ,bousset that the 
instances where the  word ,lord appears 
in the vocative case do not necessarily 
involve  any recognition of the lofty   
title ,lord as belonging to ,jesus2  for
 the word could be used in direct       

address in the presence of any  person  
to whom respect was to be paid4         
,nevertheless1 in some of the  passages 
the word does seem to be more than a    
mere reverential form  of address4      
,bousset himself admits that such is the
 case at least  in ,matt4 vii4 #ba1 ,not
 every one who says unto me ,lord1      
,lord1 shall  enter into the kingdom of 
heaven1 and his opinion that this       
passage  is secondary as compared with  
,lk4 vi4 #df is insufficiently grounded4
  ,the cases in the ,gospels where the  
title is used absolutely are not  very  
numerous1 and they occur chiefly in the 
,gospel of ,luke4 ,but  the estimate of 
them as secondary depends of course upon
 certain  critical conclusions about the
 relationships of the ,synoptic         
,gospels4 ,and it is doubtful whether   
,bousset has quite succeeded  in        
refuting the argument which can be      
derived from ,mk4 xii4 #ce-cg  7and     
parallels71 the passage about ,david's  
son and ,david's ,lord4  ,bousset       

himself uses this passage as an         
important testimony to the  belief of   
the early ,jerusalem ,church1 though he 
does not regard it  as representing a   
genuine saying of ,jesus4 ,yet here     
,jesus is made  to call attention to the
 fact that ,david called the ,messiah   
,lord4  ,if this passage represents the 
belief about ,jesus of the primitive    
,jerusalem ,church1 what stronger       
testimony could there be to the use  in 
that church of the title ,lord as       
applied to ,jesus8 ,bousset  avoids the 
difficulty by calling attention to the  
fact that the  ,old ,testament passage  
7,ps4 cx4 #a7 is here quoted not        
according to  the original but according
 to the ,septuagint translation4 ,in the
  original ,hebrew1 says ,bousset1 there
 was a distinction between the  word    
,lord as applied to ,god and the word   
,lord as applied to the  other person   
who is referred to2 the ,hebrew has1    
,jahwe said to my  ,lord 7adoni74 ,thus 
that second person1 according to the    

,hebrew1  can be regarded as a human    
individual1 and all that is meant by the
  term ,lord as used of him by ,david is
 that he stood higher than  ,david4     
,bousset seems to think that this       
explanation destroys the  value of the  
passage as a witness to the use in the  
,jerusalem ,church  of the religious    
term ,lord as applied to ,jesus4 ,but   
such is by no  means the case4 ,for if  
the ,messiah 7,jesus7 was higher than   
,david1 so  that ,david could call ,him 
,lord1 then ,jesus must have occupied   
some  very lofty position4 ,if ,david   
could call ,him ,lord1 would the title  
be refused to ,him by humble members of 
the ,jerusalem ,church8 ,on  ,bousset's 
interpretation the passage may not      
directly attest the use  of the title by
 the ,jerusalem ,church1 but it does    
seem to presuppose  it4 ,it may also be 
questioned whether ,bousset has         
succeeded in  getting rid of ,mk4 xi4   
#c1 as a witness to the title ,lord as  
applied  to ,jesus in the ,jerusalem    

,church4    ,but does the infrequency of
 the use of the title ,lord in the      
,gospels necessarily indicate that that 
title was not prevalent  in the         
primitive ,jerusalem ,church8 ,it must  
be remembered that  the title ,christ1  
which was of course applied to ,jesus by
 the  ,jerusalem ,church1 is also very  
infrequent in the ,gospels4 ,why should 
the infrequency in the ,gospel use of   
one title be regarded as an  argument   
against the use of that title in the    
,jerusalem ,church1 when  in the case of
 the other title no such argument can   
possibly be set  up8 ,bousset is ready  
with his answer4 ,but the answer is     
entirely  inadequate4 ,the title        
,christ1 ,bousset says1 was an          
eschatological  title2 it referred to a 
dignity which in the belief of the      
,jerusalem  ,church ,jesus was not to   
attain until ,his coming in glory4      
,therefore  it could not readily be     
applied to ,jesus in the accounts of    
,his  earthly ministry4 ,hence in the   

case of that title there was a  special 
obstacle which hindered the intrusion of
 the title into the  ,gospel tradition4 
,but in the case of the title ,lord1    
there was  no such obstacle2 therefore  
the non-intrusion of that title into    
the ,gospel tradition requires a special
 explanation2 and the only  possible    
explanation is that the title was not   
used in the ,jerusalem  ,church4    ,it 
would be difficult to crowd into brief  
compass so many highly  debatable       
assertions as are crowded together in   
this argument4  ,was the title ,christ a
 purely eschatological title8 ,it is not
  a purely eschatological title in      
,paul4 ,it is not really a purely       
eschatological title anywhere in the    
,new ,testament4 ,at any rate1  ,bousset
 is here adopting a conception of the   
,messiahship of ,jesus  which is at best
 problematical and is rejected by men of
 the most  widely divergent points of   
view4 ,and did the title ,lord designate
  ,jesus especially as the present ,lord

 of the ,church1 rather than as  the one
 who was finally to usher in the        
,kingdom8 ,was ,jesus in the  belief of 
the early ,church the coming ,christ any
 more than ,he was  the coming ,lord2   
and was ,he the present ,lord any more  
than ,he was  the present ,christ8      
,these questions cannot be answered with
 absolute  certainty4 ,at any rate1 even
 if ,bousset can point to a larger      
proportion of eschatological interest in
 the one title than that  which appears 
in the other1 yet such a distinction is 
relative only4  ,and it still remains   
true that if the infrequency of the     
title  ,christ in the ,gospels does not 
indicate the non-existence of that      
title in the ,jerusalem ,church1 the    
infrequency of the title ,lord  in the  
,gospels is not any more significant4   
,with regard to the title ,son of ,man1 
,bousset makes a remark  somewhat       
similar to that which he makes about the
 title ,christ4  ,the title ,son of     
,man1 he says1 was eschatological2      

therefore it  could not be introduced   
into the narrative part of the ,gospels4
  ,but it will always remain one of the 
paradoxes of ,bousset's theory  that    
according to ,bousset the title ,son of 
,man1 which 7except in  ,acts vii4 #ef7 
appears in the tradition only in the    
words of ,jesus1  and never as the title
 used when men spoke about ,jesus1      
should be  supposed to have been the    
characteristic title used in speaking   
about ,jesus in the ,jerusalem ,church4 
,if the belief of the ,jerusalem        
,church about ,jesus was so exclusively 
a ,son-of-,man dogma1 as ,bousset       
supposes it was1 and if that church was 
so little concerned with  historical    
fact1 it seems somewhat strange that the
 title1 ,son of  ,man1 has not been     
allowed1 despite its eschatological     
character1 to  intrude into the ,gospel 
narrative4 ,another hypothesis will     
always  suggest itself--the hypothesis  
that ,jesus really used the title1  ,son
 of ,man1 in a somewhat mysterious way1 

in speaking about  ,himself1 and that   
the memory of the fact that it was ,his 
own special  designation of ,himself has
 been preserved in the curious          
limitation  of the use of the title in  
the ,new ,testament4 ,in that case1 in  
view  of the accuracy thus established  
with regard to one title1 the  testimony
 of the ,gospels with regard to the     
other title1 ,lord1  cannot lightly be  
rejected4    ,but the evidence for the  
use of the title ,lord in the primitive 
,jerusalem ,church is not contained     
merely in the ,gospels4 ,other  evidence
 appears in the ,pauline ,epistles4     
,the most obvious fact is that ,paul    
himself uses the term as the            
characteristic title of ,jesus4 ,and it 
is equally evident that he did  not     
invent this usage4 ,evidently it was a  
continuation of a usage  which prevailed
 before he began his work4 ,so much is  
fully admitted  by ,bousset4 ,but whence
 did ,paul derive the usage8 ,or rather1
  supposing that he began his own use of

 the title at the moment of  the        
conversion1 in accordance with the      
representation in ,acts 7,who  art thou1
 ,lord871 whence did he derive his      
assumption that the  title was already  
in use8 ,the most obvious view is that  
he assumed  the title to be already     
known because it was in use in the early
  ,jerusalem ,church4 ,the              
matter-of-course way in which ,paul     
applies  the title ,lord to ,jesus has  
always1 until recently1 been taken as   
indicating that the title had been      
prevalent from the very beginning  of   
the ,church's life4    ,but at this     
point appears one of the most important 
features of  ,bousset's theory4 ,paul   
derived the title ,lord1 ,bousset       
believes1  from those who had been      
,christians before him2 but he derived  
it1  not from the ,jerusalem ,church1   
but from the ,christian communities in  
such cities as ,antioch1 ,tarsus1 and   
perhaps ,damascus4 ,it is in these      
communities1 therefore1 that the genesis

 of the title ,lord1 as  applied to     
,jesus1 is to be placed4    ,attention  
has already been called to the          
difficulties which  beset this          
interposition of an extra link between  
,paul and the  ,jerusalem ,church4 ,it  
has been shown that what ,paul received 
he  received not from the churches at   
,antioch and ,tarsus but from  the      
original disciples at ,jerusalem4 ,but  
in addition to the  general             
considerations which connect the whole  
of ,paulinism with  the ,jerusalem      
tradition about ,jesus1 there are       
certain special  indications of a       
,jerusalem origin of the title ,lord4   
,one such indication may be found1      
perhaps1 in ,gal4 i4 #ai4 ,when1 in     
connection with a visit to ,jerusalem   
which occurred three years  after the   
conversion1 ,paul speaks of ,james the  
brother of the  ,lord1 the natural      
inference is that the brother of the    
,lord was  a designation which was      
applied to ,james in ,jerusalem2 and if 

so1  then the title ,lord was current in
 the ,jerusalem ,church4#bbd ,of        
course1 the inference is not absolutely 
certain2 ,paul might have  designated   
,james as the brother of the ,lord      
because that was the  designation of    
,james in the ,galatian ,churches and   
the designation  which ,paul himself    
commonly used1 even if it was not       
current in  ,jerusalem4 ,but the natural
 impression which the passage will      
always make upon an unsophisticated     
reader is that ,paul is using a         
terminology which was already fixed     
among ,james' associates at the  time   
and place to which the narrative refers4
 ,it should be observed  that in        
speaking of ,peter1 ,paul actually uses 
the ,aramaic form and  not the ,greek   
form of the name4 ,the indications are  
that with  regard to the leaders of the 
,jerusalem ,church ,paul is accustomed  
generally to follow the ,jerusalem      
usage4 ,and the evidence of such a      
passage as ,gal4 i4 #ah1 #ai1 where     

,jerusalem conditions are mentioned1  is
 doubly strong4 ,the use in this passage
 of the title brother of  the ,lord     
would indeed not be absolutely decisive 
if it stood alone4  ,but taken in       
connection with the other evidence1 it  
does point  strongly to the prevalence  
in the early ,jerusalem ,church of the  
title ,lord as applied to ,jesus4       
#bbd ,knowling1 ,the ,witness of the    
,epistles1 #ahib1 p4 #ae4    ,more      
stress is usually laid upon the         
occurrence of ,maranatha in #a  ,cor4   
xvi4 #bb4 ,maranatha is ,aramaic1 and it
 means ,our ,lord1 come6  ,why was the  
,aramaic word ,our ,lord included1 as a 
designation  of ,jesus1 in a ,greek     
letter8 ,the natural supposition is that
 it  had been hallowed by its use in the
 ,aramaic-speaking church at            
,jerusalem4 ,accordingly it pushes the  
use of the title ,lord back  to the     
primitive ,christian community2 the     
title cannot1 therefore1  be regarded as
 a product of the ,hellenistic churches 

in ,antioch and  ,tarsus4    ,this      
argument has been met in various ways4  
,according to ,bhlig1  the passage does 
attest the application of the ,aramaic  
title ,lord  to ,jesus1 but that        
application1 ,bhlig believes1 was made  
not in  ,palestine but in ,syria1 not in
 ,jerusalem but in ,antioch4 ,syria1    
indeed1 with ,cilicia1 was1 ,bhlig      
insists1 the special home of the        
designation ,lord as applied to the     
gods2 the word ,baal1 the  common       
,semitic title of the ,syrian gods1     
means ,lord4 ,and ,bhlig  also points to
 the appearance of the title ,mar along 
with ,baal as a  title of divinity4#bbe 
#bbe ,see ,bhlig1 ,zum ,begriff ,kyrios 
bei ,paulus1 in ,zeitschrift    fr die  
neutestamentliche ,wissenschaft1 xiv1   
#aiac1 pp4 #bc-cg4    ,but why was the  
,semitic title retained in a ,greek     
letter8 ,in answer  to this question the
 bilingual condition of ,syria may be   
appealed  to4 ,but what particular      
sanctity could be attached to the       

,semitic  usage of ,syria2 why should   
,paul follow that usage in writing to a 
church that was situated1 not in the    
,east1 but in ,greece proper8 ,if1  on  
the other hand1 the title ,mar had been 
hallowed by the use of  the original    
disciples of ,jesus1 then the retention 
of the original  word without           
translation is perfectly natural4       
,bousset now proposes another           
hypothesis4#bbf ,the phrase  ,maranatha1
 he says1 probably had nothing to do    
with ,jesus2 it  constitutes merely a   
formula of cursing like the anathema    
which  immediately precedes in #a ,cor4 
xvi4 #bb2 the ,maran 7or ,marana7 refers
  not to ,jesus1 but to ,god2 the       
formula means1 ,our ,lord 7,god7 shall  
come and judge4 ,but ,bousset adduces no
 real evidence in support of  his       
explanation4 ,no such formula of cursing
 seems to have been found  in ,semitic  
sources4 ,and why should ,paul introduce
 such a ,semitic  curse in writing to   
,corinth8 ,the latest hypothesis of     

,bousset is  certainly a desperate      
expedient4      #bbf ,bousset1 ,jesus   
der ,herr1 #aiaf1 pp4 #bb;f4 ,compare   
,kyrios    ,christos1 #aiac1 p4 #ajc4   
,marana in #a ,cor4 xvi4 #bb1 therefore1
 certainly refers to ,jesus1  and the   
strong presumption is that it was       
derived from ,palestine4  ,the passage  
constitutes a real testimony to the use 
of the title  ,lord as a designation of 
,jesus in the ,palestinian ,church4     
,possibly1 moreover1 this passage may   
also serve to fix the original  ,aramaic
 form of the title4 ,bousset and certain
 other scholars have  been inclined to  
detect a linguistic difficulty in the   
way of  attributing the title ,lord to  
the ,aramaic-speaking ,church4 ,the     
absolute ,mara1 it is said1 does not    
seem to have been current  in ,aramaic2 
only ,mari 7my ,lord7 and ,maran 7our   
,lord7 seem  to have been commonly used4
 ,but it is just in the absolute form1  
the ,lord1 that the title appears most  
frequently in the ,greek  ,new          

,testament4 ,therefore1 it is concluded1
 this ,new ,testament  ,greek usage     
cannot go back to the usage of the      
,aramaic-speaking  ,church4 ,it will    
perhaps be unnecessary to enter upon the
 linguistic  side of this argument4     
,various possibilities might be         
suggested  for examination to the       
students of ,aramaic--among others1 the 
possibility that ,mari1 ,maran1 had come
 to be used absolutely1  like ,rabbi1   
,rabban1 the original meaning of the    
possessive  suffix having been          
obscured4#bbg ,but in general it can    
probably  be said that if persons of    
,aramaic speech had desired to designate
  ,jesus1 absolutely1 as ,lord or the   
,lord1 the language was  presumably not 
so poor but that the essential idea     
could have been  expressed4 ,and it is  
the essential idea1 not the word1 which 
is  really important4 ,the important    
thing is that the attitude toward       
,jesus which is expressed by the ,greek 
word ,kyrios1 was1 unless all           

indications fail1 also the attitude of  
the ,jerusalem ,church4      #bbg       
,compare ,bousset1 ,kyrios ,christos1   
#aiac1 p4 #ii1 ,anm4 #c4    ,but may not
 the ,greek title itself have originated
 in ,jerusalem8  ,this possibility has  
been neglected in recent discussions of 
the  subject4 ,but it is worthy of the  
most careful consideration4 ,it  should 
be remembered that ,palestine in the    
first century after  ,christ was a      
bilingual country4#bbh ,no doubt        
,aramaic was in  common use among the   
great body of the people1 and no doubt  
it  was the language of ,jesus'         
teaching4 ,but ,greek was also in use1  
and it is by no means beyond the bounds 
of possibility that even  ,jesus spoke  
,greek when occasion demanded4 ,at any  
rate1 the early  ,jerusalem ,church     
included a large body of ,greek-speaking
 persons2  the ,hellenists are mentioned
 in ,acts vi4 #a in a way to which  high
 historical importance is usually       
attributed4 ,it is altogether  probable1

 therefore1 that the terminology current
 in the ,jerusalem  ,church from the    
very beginning1 or almost from the very 
beginning1  was ,greek as well as       
,aramaic4 ,from this ,greek-speaking    
part of the  ,church the original       
apostles could hardly have held         
themselves  aloof4 ,total ignorance of  
,greek on the part of ,galileans is     
improbable in view of what is known in  
general about linguistic  conditions in 
,palestine2 and in the capital1 with its
 foreign  connections1 and its hosts of 
,hellenists1 the opportunity for  the   
use of ,greek would be enormously       
increased4 ,it is altogether            
improbable1 therefore1 that the ,greek  
terminology of the ,hellenists  resident
 in ,jerusalem was formed without the   
approval of the  original disciples of  
,jesus4 ,when the apostle ,paul1        
therefore1  assumes everywhere that the 
term ,lord as applied to ,jesus was no  
peculiarity of his own1 but was familiar
 to all his readers1 the  phenomenon can

 be best explained if not only the sense
 of the title1  but also its ,greek     
form1 was due to the mother ,church4 ,in
 other  words1 the transition from      
,aramaic to ,greek1 as the language of  
the  disciples of ,jesus1 did not occur 
at ,antioch or ,tarsus1 as ,bousset     
seems to think4 ,in all probability it  
occurred at ,jerusalem1 and  occurred   
under the supervision of the immediate  
friends of ,jesus4 ,it  could not       
possibly1 therefore1 have involved a    
transformation of the  original faith4  
#bbh ,zahn1 ,einleitung in das ,neue    
,testament1 #cte ,aufl41 i1 #aijf1      
pp4 #ba-cb1 #ci-dg 7,english            
,translation1 ,introduction to the ,new 
,testament1 #bnd ,ed41 #aiag1 i1 pp4    
#cd-df1 #eg-fg74    ,but the linguistic 
considerations just adduced are only    
supplementary4 ,even if the use of      
,greek in ,jerusalem was less  important
 than has here been suggested1 the state
 of the case is  not essentially        
altered4 ,every attempt at separating   

the religion of  ,paul sharply from the 
religion of the ,jerusalem ,church has  
resulted  in failure4 ,whatever may have
 been the linguistic facts1 the divine  
,lord of the ,epistles was also the     
,lord of those who had been  intimate   
friends of ,jesus of ,nazareth4         
,bousset of course rejects this         
conclusion4 ,but he does so on          
insufficient grounds4 ,his theory1 it   
may well be maintained1 has  already    
broken down at the most decisive point4 
,it is not really  possible to interpose
 the ,christianity of ,antioch and      
,tarsus between  the ,jerusalem ,church 
and ,paul2 it is not really possible to 
suppose  that that ,christianity of     
,antioch was essentially different from 
the  ,jerusalem ,christianity which had 
given it birth2 in particular it is  not
 possible to deny the use of the title  
,lord1 and the religious  attitude      
toward ,jesus which the title           
represents1 to the original  friends of 
,jesus4 ,examination of the further     

elements of ,bousset's  theory1         
therefore1 can be undertaken only under 
protest4 ,but such  examination is      
important4 ,for it will confirm the     
unfavorable  impression which has       
already been received4    ,if1 as       
,bousset says1 the title ,lord1 as a    
designation of ,jesus1  originated not  
at ,jerusalem but at ,antioch1 in what  
way did it  originate8 ,it originated1  
,bousset believes1 in the meetings of   
the ,church1 and it originated in       
dependence upon the surrounding  pagan  
cults4 ,at ,jerusalem1 according to     
,bousset1 the piety of  the disciples   
was purely eschatological2 ,jesus was   
awaited with  eagerness1 ,he was to come
 in glory1 but meanwhile ,he was absent4
  ,there was no thought of communion    
with ,him4 ,at ,antioch1 however1  a    
different attitude began to be assumed4 
,as the little community  of disciples  
was united for comfort and prayer and   
the reception  of the ecstatic gifts of 
the ,spirit1 it came to be felt that    

,jesus  was actually present2 the       
wonderful experiences of the meetings   
came to be attributed to ,him4 ,but if  
,he was actually present in the         
meetings of the ,church1 a new title was
 required to express what  ,he meant to 
those who belonged to ,him4 ,and one    
title lay ready to  hand4 ,it was the   
title ,lord4 ,that title was used by the
 pagans  to designate their own false   
gods4 ,surely no lower title could be   
used by the ,christians to designate    
their ,jesus4 ,the title ,lord1         
moreover1 was especially a cult-title2  
it was used to designate  those gods who
 presided especially over the worship1  
over the  cult1 of the pagan religions4 
,but it was just in the cult1 in  the   
meetings of the ,church1 that the new   
attitude toward ,jesus had  arisen4 ,the
 experience of ,jesus' presence1        
therefore1 and the title  which would   
give expression to it1 were naturally   
joined together4  ,in the rapture of a  
meeting of the group of worshipers1 in  

the midst  of wonderful ecstatic        
experiences1 some member of the ,church 
at  ,antioch or ,tarsus1 or perhaps many
 members simultaneously1 uttered  the   
momentous words1 ,lord ,jesus4    ,thus 
occurred1 according to the theory of    
,bousset1 the most  momentous event in  
the history of ,christianity1 one of the
 most  momentous events in the whole    
religious history of the race4          
,christianity ceased to be merely faith 
in ,god like the faith which  ,jesus    
had2 it became faith in ,jesus4 ,jesus  
was now no longer merely  an example for
 faith2 ,he had become the object of    
faith4 ,the prophet  of ,nazareth had   
become an object of worship2 the        
,messiah had given  way to the ,lord4   
,jesus had taken a place which before   
had been  assigned only to ,god4        
,this estimate of the event of course   
depends upon ,bousset's  critical       
conclusions about the ,new ,testament   
literature4 ,and those  conclusions are 
open to serious objections4 ,the        

objections have  already been considered
 so far as the title ,lord is concerned2
  that title cannot really be denied to 
the original disciples of  ,jesus4      
,equally serious are the objections     
against what ,bousset says  about faith 
in ,jesus4 ,a consideration of these    
objections lies  beyond the scope of the
 present discussion4 ,the ground has    
been  covered in masterly fashion by    
,james ,denney1 who has shown that  even
 in the earliest strata of the ,gospel  
literature1 as they are  distinguished  
by modern criticism of sources1 ,jesus  
appears not  merely as an example for   
faith but as the object of              
faith--indeed1  that ,jesus actually so 
presented ,himself4#bbi ,christianity   
was  never a mere imitation of the faith
 which ,jesus reposed in ,god4 ,but  it 
is now necessary to return to the       
examination of the ,antioch  ,church4   
#bbi ,denney1 ,jesus and the ,gospel1   
#aijh4    ,the title ,lord1 as applied  
to ,jesus1 ,bousset believes1 originated

  in the meetings of the ,antioch       
disciples--in what may be called1  for  
want of a better term1 the public       
worship of the ,church4  ,this assertion
 constitutes an important step in       
,bousset's  reconstruction4 ,but the    
evidence adduced in support of it is    
insufficient4 ,the passages cited from  
the ,pauline ,epistles show1  indeed1   
that great importance was attributed to 
the meetings of the  ,church2 they show 
perhaps that the custom of holding such 
meetings  prevailed from the very       
beginning4 ,but they do not show that   
the  whole of the ,church's devotion to 
,christ and the whole of ,paul's        
religion were derived1 by way of        
development1 from the cult4 ,it is  not 
necessary to suppose either that the    
individual relation to  ,christ was     
derived from the cult1 or that the cult 
was derived from  the individual        
relation4 ,there is also a third        
possibility--that  individual piety and 
the cult were both practised from the   

very beginning side by side4 ,at any    
rate1 ,bousset has vastly               
underestimated the importance of the    
conversion as determining the  character
 of ,paul's religious life4 ,the        
,damascus experience lay  at the very   
foundation of all of ,paul's thinking   
and all of his  actions4 ,yet that      
experience had nothing to do with the   
cult4    ,but even if1 in accordance    
with ,bousset's reconstruction1 the     
title  ,lord was applied to ,jesus under
 the influence of the ecstatic          
conditions that prevailed in the        
meetings of the ,church1 the origin  of 
the title is not yet explained4 ,how did
 the ,christians at ,antioch  come to   
think that their ecstatic experiences   
were due to the fact  that ,jesus was   
presiding over their meetings8 ,and if  
they did come  to think so1 why did they
 choose just the title ,lord in order to
  express the dignity that they desired 
to attribute to ,him8    ,at this point1
 ,bousset has recourse to a comparison  

with the  surrounding paganism4 ,the    
term ,lord1 he says1 was common in the  
,hellenistic age as a title of the      
cult-gods of the various forms of       
worship4 ,and the material which        
,bousset has collected in proof of  this
 assertion is entirely convincing4 ,not 
only in the worship of  the ,emperors   
and other rulers1 but also in the       
,hellenized religions  of the ,east1 the
 title ,lord was well known as a        
designation of  divinity4 ,indeed1 ,paul
 himself refers plainly to the currency 
of the title4 ,for though there be1 he  
says1 that are called  gods1 whether in 
heaven or on earth2 as there are gods   
many1 and  lords many2 yet to us there  
is one ,god1 the ,father1 of whom are   
all things1 and we unto him2 and one    
,lord1 ,jesus ,christ1 through  whom are
 all things1 and we through him 7#a     
,cor4 viii4 #e1 #f74 ,in  this passage1 
the lords many are of course heathen    
gods1 and it  is clearly implied that   
the term lord was the title which was   

given them by their own worshipers4     
,bousset is entirely correct1           
therefore1 when he says that the title  
,lord1 at ,antioch1 at  ,tarsus1 and    
everywhere in the ,greco-,roman world1  
was clearly a title  of divinity4       
,indeed1 it may be added1 the word lord 
was no whit  inferior in dignity to the 
term god4#bcj ,when the early ,christian
  missionaries1 therefore1 called ,jesus
 ,lord1 it was perfectly  plain to their
 pagan hearers everywhere that they     
meant to ascribe  divinity to ,him and  
desired to worship ,him4      #bcj      
,warfield1 ',god our ,father and the    
,lord ,jesus ,christ1' in    ,the       
,princeton ,theological ,review1 xv1    
#aiag1 p4 #ah4    ,thus the currency of 
the title in pagan religion was of great
  importance for the early ,christian   
mission4 ,but that does not  necessarily
 mean that the title was applied to     
,jesus in the first  place because of   
the pagan usage1 or that the ascription 
of divine  dignity to ,jesus was first  

ventured upon because the ,christians   
desired to place the one whom they      
revered in a position at least  equal to
 that of the pagan cult-gods4 ,it is    
these assertions  which have not been   
proved4 ,indeed1 they are improbable in 
the  extreme4 ,they are rendered        
improbable1 for example1 by the sturdy  
monotheism of the ,christian            
communities4 ,that monotheism was not at
  all impaired by the honor which was   
paid to ,jesus2 the ,christian          
communities were just as intolerant of  
other gods as had been the  ancient     
,hebrew prophets4 ,this intolerance and 
exclusiveness of  the early ,church     
constitutes a stupendous difference     
between the  ,christian ,jesus-cult and 
the cults of the other ,lords4 ,the     
pagan  cults were entirely tolerant2    
worship of one ,lord did not mean the   
relinquishment of another4 ,but to the  
,christians there was one ,lord  and one
 only4 ,it is very difficult to see how 
in an atmosphere of  such monotheism the

 influence of the pagan cults could have
 been  allowed to intrude4 ,any thought 
of the analogy which an application  of 
the title ,lord to ,jesus would set up  
between the meetings of  the ,church at 
,antioch and the worship of the heathen 
gods would  have hindered1 rather than  
have actually caused1 the use of the    
title4 ,evidently the title1 and        
especially the divine dignity of  ,jesus
 which the title expressed1 were quite  
independent of the pagan  usage4        
,certainly the mere fact that the       
,christians used a title which was  also
 used in the pagan cults does not       
establish any dependence upon  paganism4
 ,for the title ,lord#bca was almost as 
well established  as a designation of   
divinity as was the term ,god4#bcb      
,whatever  had been the origin of the   
religious use of the word1 that use had 
become a part of the ,greek language4 ,a
 missionary who desired to  proclaim the
 one true ,god was obliged1 if he spoke 
in ,greek1 to use  the term ,god1 which 

of course had been used in pagan        
religion4 ,so  if he desired to         
designate ,jesus as ,god1 by some word  
which at the  same time would           
distinguish ,him from ,god the ,father1 
he was obliged  to use the word ,lord1  
though that word also had been used in  
paganism4 ,neither in the one case nor  
in the other did the use of a  ,greek   
word involve the slightest influence of 
the conceptions which  had been attached
 to the word in a polytheistic religion4
      #bca       #bcb     ,but there was
 a far stronger reason for the          
application of the  ,greek term ,lord to
 ,jesus than that which was found in its
 general  currency among ,greek-speaking
 peoples4 ,the religious use of the     
term was not limited to the pagan cults1
 but appears also1 and if  anything even
 more firmly established1 in the ,greek 
,old ,testament4  ,the word ,lord is    
used by the ,septuagint to translate the
 ,jahwe  of the ,hebrew text4 ,it would 
be quite irrelevant to discuss the      

reasons which governed the translators  
in their choice of this  particular     
word4 ,no doubt some word for ,lord was 
required by the  associations which had 
already clustered around the ,hebrew    
word4 ,and  various reasons may be      
suggested for the choice of kyrios      
rather  than some other ,greek word     
meaning lord4#bcc ,possibly the root    
meaning of kyrios better expressed the  
idea which was intended2  perhaps1 also1
 a religious meaning had already been   
attached to  kyrios1 which the other    
words did not possess4 ,at any rate1    
whatever may have been the reason1      
kyrios was the word which was  chosen4  
,and the fact is of capital importance4 
,for it was among the  readers of the   
,septuagint that ,christianity first    
made its way4  ,the ,septuagint was the 
,bible of the ,jewish synagogues1 and in
 the  synagogues the reading of it was  
heard not only by ,jews but also  by    
hosts of ,gentiles1 the ,god-fearers of 
the ,book of ,acts4 ,it was  with the   

,god-fearers that the ,gentile mission  
began4 ,and even  where there were      
,gentile converts who had not passed at 
all through  the school of the          
synagogue--in the very earliest period  
perhaps  such converts were few--even   
then the ,septuagint was at once used   
in their instruction4 ,thus when the    
,christian missionaries used the  word  
,lord of ,jesus1 their hearers knew at  
once what they meant4  ,they knew at    
once that ,jesus occupied a place which 
is occupied only  by ,god4 ,for the word
 ,lord is used countless times in the   
,greek  scriptures as the holiest name  
of the covenant ,god of ,israel1 and    
these passages were applied freely to   
,jesus4      #bcc ,as1 for example1 4   
,this ,septuagint use of the term ,lord1
 with the application of the            
,septuagint passages to ,jesus1 which   
appears as a matter of course in  the   
,epistles of ,paul1 was of vastly more  
importance for the early  ,christian    
mission than the use of the term in the 

pagan cults4 ,and  it sheds vastly more 
light upon the original significance of 
the  term as applied to ,jesus4 ,but the
 pagan usage is interesting1 and  the   
exhibition of it by ,bousset and others 
should be thankfully  received4 ,an     
important fact has been established more
 and more  firmly by modern             
research--the fact that the ,greek word 
kyrios  in the first century of our era 
was1 wherever the ,greek language       
extended1 distinctly a designation of   
divinity4 ,the common usage of  the word
 indeed persisted2 the word still       
expressed the relation  which a master  
sustained toward his slaves4 ,but the   
word had come to  be a                  
characteristically religious term1 and  
it is in the religious  sense1          
especially as fixed by the ,septuagint1 
that it appears in the  ,new ,testament4
    ,thus it is not in accordance with  
,new ,testament usage when ,jesus  is   
called1 by certain persons in the modern
 ,church1 the ,master1  rather than the 

,lord4 ,sometimes1 perhaps1 this usage  
is adopted  in conscious protest against
 the ,new ,testament conception of the  
deity of ,christ2 ,jesus is spoken of as
 the ,master1 in very much  the way in  
which the leader of a school of artists 
is spoken of as  the ,master by his     
followers4 ,or else the word means      
merely the one  whose commands are to be
 obeyed4 ,but sometimes the modern      
fashion is  adopted by devout men and   
women with the notion that the ,english 
word ,lord has been worn down and that  
the use of the word ,master  is a closer
 approach to the meaning of the ,greek  
,testament4 ,this  notion is false4 ,in 
translating the ,new ,testament         
designation of  ,jesus1 one should not  
desire to get back to the original      
meaning  of the word kyrios4 ,for the   
,greek word had already undergone a     
development1 and as applied to ,jesus in
 the ,new ,testament it was  clearly a  
religious term4 ,it had exactly the     
religious associations  which are now   

possessed by our ,english word ,lord4   
,and for very  much the same reason4    
,the religious associations of the      
,english word  ,lord are due to ,bible  
usage2 and the religious associations of
  the ,new ,testament word kyrios were  
also due to ,bible usage--the  usage of 
the ,septuagint4 ,the ,christian1 then1 
should remember that  a little learning 
is a dangerous thing4 ,the uniform      
substitution  of the ,master for the    
,lord in speaking of ,jesus has only a  
false  appearance of freshness and      
originality4 ,in reality it sometimes   
means a departure from the spirit of the
 ,new ,testament usage4    ,accordingly1
 ,bousset has performed a service in    
setting in clear  relief the religious  
meaning of the word ,lord4 ,but he has  
not  succeeded in explaining the        
application of that word to ,jesus4     
,further difficulties1 moreover1 beset  
,bousset's theory4 ,the term  ,lord as  
applied to ,jesus1 and the religious    
attitude toward ,jesus  expressed by the

 term1 arose1 according to ,bousset1 in 
the meetings  of such communities as the
 one at ,antioch1 and under the         
influence  of pagan conceptions4 ,but of
 course ,bousset's explanation of the   
origin of ,paulinism has not yet been   
completely set forth4 ,paulinism  is    
something far more than an ecstatic     
worship of a cult-god2 the  personal    
relation to ,christ dominates every     
department of the  apostle's life4      
,bousset recognizes this fact4 ,the     
religion of ,paul1 he admits1 is        
something far more than the religion    
which was expressed in the  meetings of 
the ,antioch ,church4 ,but he supposes  
that the other  elements of ,paul's     
religion1 far-reaching as they are1 had 
at least  their starting-point in the   
cult4 ,here is to be found one of the   
least plausible elements in the whole   
construction4 ,bousset has              
underestimated the individualistic      
character of ,paul's religion4 ,at      
least he has not succeeded in showing   

that the ,pauline life in  ,christ or in
 the ,lord was produced by development  
from ecstatic  experiences in the       
meetings of the ,antioch ,church4       
,but if the individualistic religion of 
,paul was developed from the  cult1 how 
was it developed8 ,how shall the        
introduction of the new  elements be    
explained8 ,bousset has attacked this   
problem with great  earnestness4 ,and he
 tries to show that the religion of     
,paul as it  appears in the ,epistles   
was developed from the cult religion of 
,antioch by the identification of the   
,lord with the ,spirit1 and  by the     
generalizing and ethicizing of the      
conception of the ,spirit's  activity4  
,the ,pauline doctrine of the ,spirit1  
,bousset believes1 was derived  from the
 pagan mystical religion of the         
,hellenistic age4 ,quite  aside from the
 matter of terminology--though the      
contentions of  ,reitzenstein are       
thought by ,bousset to be essentially   
correct--the  fundamental pessimistic   

dualism of ,paul was based1 according to
  ,bousset1 upon that widespread type of
 thought and life which appears  in the 
mystery religions and in the ,hermetic  
writings4 ,according to  this           
pessimistic way of thinking1 salvation  
could never be attained  by human       
nature1 even with divine aid1 but only  
by an entirely  new beginning1 produced 
by the substitution of the divine nature
  for the old man4 ,by the apostle      
,paul1 ,bousset continues1 this         
supernaturalism1 this conception of the 
dominance of divine power  in the new   
life1 was extended far beyond the limits
 of the cult  or of visionary           
experiences2 the ,spirit was made to be 
the ruling  principle of the            
,christian's life2 not only prophecy1   
tongues1  healing1 and the like1 were   
now regarded as the fruit of the        
,spirit1  but also love1 joy1 peace1    
longsuffering1 kindness1 goodness1      
faithfulness1 meekness1 self-control4   
,but this ,pauline extension  of the    

,spirit's activity1 ,bousset insists1   
did not involve the  slightest weakening
 of the supernaturalism which was       
characteristic  of the original         
conception2 the ,spirit that produced   
love1 joy1  peace1 had just as little to
 do with the human spirit as the ,spirit
  that caused men to speak with tongues4
 ,and the supernaturalism which  here   
appears in glorified form was derived1  
,bousset concludes1 from  the mystical  
pagan religion of the ,hellenistic age4 
,this contention has already been       
discussed1 and the weakness of it  has  
been pointed out4 ,the ,pauline doctrine
 of the ,spirit was not  derived from   
contemporary paganism4 ,but the         
exposition of ,bousset's  theory has not
 yet been finished4 ,the ,spirit whose  
activities were  extended by ,paul into 
the innermost recesses of the           
,christian's  life was identified1      
,bousset says1 with the ,lord 7#b ,cor4 
iii4  #ag74 ,this identification exerted
 an important influence upon both  the  

elements that were brought together2 it 
exerted an important  influence upon the
 conception both of the ,lord and of the
  ,spirit4 ,if the ,lord was identified1
 or brought into very close  relation1  
with the ,spirit1 and if the ,spirit's  
activity extended  into the whole of    
life1 then the ,lord could no longer be 
for  ,paul merely the cult-god who was  
present in the meetings of the  ,church4
 ,on the contrary1 ,he would have to be 
present everywhere  where the ,spirit   
was present--that is1 ,he would have to 
be that in  which the ,christian lived  
and moved and had his being4 ,thus ,paul
  could form the astonishing phrase in  
,christ or in the ,lord1  for which     
,bousset admits that no analogy is to be
 found in pagan  religion4 ,on the other
 hand1 the conception of the ,spirit1   
,bousset  believes1 was necessarily     
modified by its connection with the     
,lord4 ,by the identification with an   
actual person who had lived  but a few  
years before1 the ,spirit was given a   

personal quality  which otherwise it did
 not possess4 ,or1 to put the same thing
 in  other words1 the ,pauline phrase in
 the ,lord is not exactly the  same in  
meaning as the phrase in the ,spirit2   
for it possesses  a peculiar personal   
character4 ,this remarkable mingling of 
abstraction and personality1 says       
,bousset1 this connection of a          
religious principle with a person who   
had walked here on the earth  and had   
here suffered death1 is a phenomenon of 
peculiar power and  originality4    ,at 
this point1 ,bousset is in danger of    
being untrue to the  fundamental        
principles of his reconstruction2 he is 
in danger of  bringing the religion of  
,paul into connection with the concrete 
person of ,jesus4 ,but he detects the   
danger and avoids it4 ,it must  not be  
supposed1 he says1 that ,paul had any   
very clear impression  of the           
characteristics of the historical       
,jesus4 ,for if he had had  such an     
impression1 he never could have         

connected ,jesus with an  abstraction   
like the ,spirit4 ,all that he was      
interested in1 then1  was the fact that 
,jesus had lived and especially that ,he
 had died4    ,yet these bare facts are 
thought to have been sufficient to      
impart  to ,paul's notion of the        
,spirit-,lord that peculiar personal    
quality  which arouses the admiration of
 ,bousset6 ,the truth is1 ,bousset finds
  himself at this point face to face    
with the difficulty which besets  every 
naturalistic explanation of the genesis 
of ,paul's religion4  ,the trouble is   
that a close connection of ,paul with   
the historical  ,jesus is imperatively  
required by the historian in order to   
impart  to ,paul's relation to ,christ  
that warm1 personal quality which       
shines out from every page of the       
,epistles2 whereas1 on the other  hand1 
a wide separation of ,paul from the     
historical ,jesus is just  as           
imperatively required in order that     
,paul might not be hampered  by         

historical tradition in raising ,jesus  
to divine dignity and in  bringing ,him 
into connection with the ,spirit of     
,god4    ,modern criticism has wavered  
between the two requirements2 it  tries 
to preserve the rights of each4 ,bousset
 is more impressed by  the second       
requirement2 ,wernle1 his opponent1 is  
more impressed  by the former4#bcd ,but 
both are equally wrong4 ,there is really
  only one way out of the difficulty4   
,it is an old way and a radical  way4   
,but the world of scholarship may come  
back to it in the end4  ,the fundamental
 difficulty in explaining the origin of 
,paulinism  will never disappear by     
being ignored2 it will never yield to   
compromises of any kind4 ,it will       
disappear only when ,jesus is           
recognized as being really what ,paul   
presupposes ,him to be and what  all the
 ,gospels represent ,him as being--the  
eternal ,son of ,god1  come to earth for
 the redemption of man1 now seated once 
more on  the throne of ,his glory1 and  

working in the hearts of ,his disciples 
through ,his ,spirit1 as only ,god can  
work4 ,such a solution was never  so    
unpopular as it is to-day4 ,acceptance  
of it will involve a  ,copernican       
revolution in many departments of human 
thought and life4  ,but refusal of such 
acceptance has left an historical       
problem which  so far has not been      
solved4      #bcd ,wernle1 ,jesus and   
,paulus4 ,antithesen zu ,boussets       
,kyrios    ,christos1 in ,zeitschrift fr
 ,theologie und ,kirche1 xxv1 #aiae1 pp4
    #a-ib4    ,at one point1 ,bousset   
admits1 the religion of ,paul was based 
upon  an historical fact4 ,it was based 
upon the death of ,jesus4 ,but the      
,pauline interpretation of the death of 
,jesus was derived1 ,bousset  believes1 
in important particulars from           
contemporary pagan religion2  the       
,pauline notion of dying and rising with
 ,christ was formed under  the influence
 of the widespread pagan conception of  
the dying and  rising god4 ,this        

assertion has become quite common among 
recent  scholars2 material in support of
 it has been collected in convenient    
form by ,m4 ,brckner4#bce ,but as a     
matter of fact1 the evidence in  support
 of the assertion is of the feeblest    
kind4      #bce ,der sterbende und      
auferstehende ,gottheiland1 #aijh4      
,the review of ,hellenistic religion    
which was attempted in ,chapter  ,,vi   
revealed1 indeed1 the fact that certain 
gods1 especially ,attis1  ,adonis1 and  
,osiris1 were represented first as dying
 and then as  being resuscitated4 ,the  
similarity of these figures to one      
another  may perhaps be explained by the
 hypothesis that all of them  were      
originally vegetation gods1 whose death 
and resuscitation  represented the      
withering of vegetation in the autumn   
and its  renewal in the spring4 ,at     
first sight1 the parallel between these 
gods and ,jesus may seem striking4      
,jesus also was represented as  dying   
and as coming back to life again4 ,but  

what is the significance  of the        
parallel8 ,can it mean that the entire  
,new ,testament story  of the death and 
resurrection of ,jesus was derived from 
these  vegetation myths8 ,such has been 
the conclusion of certain modern        
scholars4 ,but of course this conclusion
 is absurd1 and it is not  favored by   
,bousset4 ,the essential historicity of 
the crucifixion  of ,jesus under        
,pontius ,pilate and of the rise of the 
belief in ,his  resurrection among ,his 
intimate friends stands too firm to be  
shaken  by any theory of dependence upon
 pagan myth4 ,thus the argument drawn   
from the parallel between the ,new      
,testament story and the pagan myth  of 
the dying and rising god proves too     
much4 ,if it proves anything1  it proves
 that the ,new ,testament story of the  
resurrection was  derived from the pagan
 myth4 ,but such a view has not been    
held by  any serious historians4        
,therefore it will have to be admitted  
that  the parallel between the belief   

that ,adonis and ,osiris and ,attis     
died and rose again1 and the belief that
 ,jesus died and rose again  was not    
produced by dependence of one story upon
 the other4 ,it will  have to be        
recognized1 therefore1 that a parallel  
does not always  mean a relationship of 
dependence4 ,and if it does not do so at
 one  point1 perhaps it does not do so  
at others4    ,but ,bousset will insist 
that although the ,new ,testament story 
of the  death and resurrection of ,jesus
 was not originally produced by the     
pagan myth1 yet the influence of the    
pagan conception made itself  felt in   
the interpretation which ,paul placed   
upon the story4 ,paul  believed that the
 ,christian shared the fate of          
,christ--died with  ,christ and rose    
with ,christ4 ,but a similar conception 
appears in  the pagan religions4 ,the   
classical expression of this idea       
appears  in the oft-quoted words        
reported by ,firmicus ,maternus1 ,be of 
good  courage1 ye initiates1 since the  

god is saved2 for to us there shall  be 
salvation out of troubles4    ,but it   
must be remembered that the testimony of
 ,firmicus ,maternus  is very late1 and 
that the evidence for the prevalence of 
the  conception in the early period is  
somewhat scanty4 ,the confident         
assertions of recent writers with regard
 to these matters are  nothing short of 
astonishing4 ,lay readers are likely to 
receive the  impression that the        
investigator can reconstruct the        
conception of  a dying and rising god1  
and of the share which the worshipers   
have  in the death and resurrection1 on 
the basis of some vast store of         
information in the extant sources4 ,as a
 matter of fact1 nothing of  the sort is
 the case4 ,the extant information about
 the conception in  question is scanty  
in the extreme1 and for the most part   
dates from  long after the time of      
,paul4    ,it would be going too far1   
indeed1 to assert that the conception of
  the dying and rising god1 with its    

religious significance1 was not  in     
existence before the ,pauline period4   
,an ancient ,egyptian text1  for        
example1 has been quoted by ,erman1     
which makes the welfare of  the         
worshiper depend upon that of ,osiris3  
,even as ,osiris lives1  he also shall  
live4#bcf ,very likely some such        
conceptions were  connected also with   
the mourning and subsequent rejoicing   
for ,attis  and ,adonis4 ,but if the    
conception was existent in the          
pre-,pauline  period1 it by no means    
follows that it was common4 ,certainly  
its  prevalence has been enormously     
exaggerated in recent years4 ,against   
such exaggerations1 ,j4 ,weiss--who     
surely cannot be accused of  any lack of
 sympathy with the methods of           
comparative religion as  applied to the 
,new ,testament--has pertinently called 
attention to  #a ,cor4 i4 #bc4 ,christ  
crucified1 ,paul says1 was to the       
,gentiles  foolishness4#bcg ,that does  
not look as though the ,gentiles among  

whom ,paul labored were very familiar   
with the notion of a dying  god4 ,if the
 contentions of ,brckner were correct1  
if the conception  of the dying god were
 as common in ,paul's day as ,brckner   
supposes1  the ,cross would not have    
been to the ,gentiles foolishness2 on   
the contrary1 it would have seemed to   
the ,gentiles to be the most  natural   
thing in the world4      #bcf ,erman1 ,a
 ,handbook of ,egyptian ,religion       
7published in the    original ,german   
edition as a handbook1 by the           
,generalverwaltung of    the ,berlin    
,imperial ,museum71 #aijg1 p4 #ie4      
#bcg ,j4 ,weiss1 ,das ,problem der      
,entstehung des ,christentums1 in       
,archiv fr ,religionswissenschaft1 xvi1 
#aiac1 p1 #dij4    ,but even if the     
early prevalence of the conception of a 
dying and  rising god1 with its         
religious significance1 were better     
established  than it is1 the dependence 
of ,paul upon that conception would by  
no  means be proved4 ,for the ,pauline  

conception is totally different4  ,one  
difference1 of course1 is perfectly     
obvious and is indeed  generally        
recognized--the ,pauline ,christ is     
represented as dying  voluntarily1 and  
dying for the sake of men4 ,he loved me1
 says  ,paul1 and gave himself for me4  
,there is absolutely nothing like  that 
conception in the case of the pagan     
religions4 ,osiris1 ,adonis1  and ,attis
 were overtaken by their fate2 ,jesus   
gave ,his life freely  away4 ,the       
difference is stupendous2 it involves   
the very heart  of the religion of      
,paul4 ,how was the difference caused8  
,whence  was derived the ,pauline       
conception of the grace of ,christ8 ,was
 it  derived from ,jesus ,himself8 ,was 
it derived from the knowledge which     
,paul had of the character of ,jesus8   
,the supposition might seem to be       
natural4 ,but unfortunately1 from the   
point of view of ,bousset1 it  must be  
rejected4 ,for if ,paul had had any     
knowledge of ,jesus' real  character1   

how could he ever have supposed that    
,jesus1 a mere man1  was the heavenly   
,lord8    ,another difference is even   
more fundamental4 ,the death and        
resurrection of the pagan gods was a    
matter of the cult2 the death  and      
resurrection of the ,pauline ,christ was
 a fact of history4 ,it has  been       
observed in the review of ,hellenistic  
religion that the cults  in the pagan   
religions were much more firmly fixed   
than the myths2  in the opinion of      
modern scholars1 the myths were derived 
from the  cults rather than vice versa4 
,so in the case of the dying and  rising
 gods1 one is struck above all things   
with the totally fluid  character of the
 myths4 ,the story of ,attis1 for       
example1 is told  in many divergent     
forms1 and there does not seem to have  
been the  slightest interest among the  
,attis worshipers for the establishment 
of any authentic account of the death   
and resurrection of the god4            
,particularly the resurrection of the   

god appears in the myths  of ,attis1    
,adonis1 and ,osiris scarcely at all4   
,the real death and  resurrection       
occurred only in the cult4 ,every year  
in ,march1 the  ,attis-worshipers at    
,rome first saw the god lying dead as he
 was  represented by the fir-tree1 and  
then rejoiced in his resurrection4  ,the
 death and resurrection were hardly     
conceived of as events which  had       
happened once for all long ago4 ,they   
were rather thought of as  happening at 
every celebration of the festival4      
,the ,pauline treatment of the death and
 resurrection of ,christ is  entirely   
different4 ,by ,bousset1 indeed1 the    
difference is partly  obscured2 ,bousset
 tries to show that the ,pauline        
conception of the  dying and rising of  
the believer with ,christ was derived   
from the  celebration of the sacraments4
 ,but there could be no more radical    
error4 ,what is plainest of all in the  
,epistles is the historical  character  
of the ,pauline message4 ,the religion  

of ,paul was rooted  in an event1 and   
the sacraments were one way of setting  
forth the  significance of the event4   
,the event was the redemptive work of   
,christ in ,his death and resurrection4 
,here lies the profoundest of all       
differences between ,paul and           
contemporary religion4 ,paulinism was   
not a philosophy2 it was not a  set of  
directions for escape from the misery of
 the world2 it was  not an account of   
what had always been true4 ,on the      
contrary1 it  was an account of         
something that had happened4 ,the thing 
that had  happened1 moreover1 was not   
hidden in the dim and distant past4     
,the account of it was not evolved as a 
justification for existing  religious   
forms4 ,on the contrary1 the death and  
resurrection of  ,jesus1 upon which     
,paul's gospel was based1 had happened  
only a  few years before4 ,and the facts
 could be established by adequate       
testimony2 the eyewitnesses could be    
questioned1 and ,paul appeals  to the   

eyewitnesses in detail4 ,the single     
passage1 #a ,cor4 xv4 #a-h1  is         
sufficient to place a stupendous gulf   
between the ,pauline ,christ  and the   
pagan saviour-gods4 ,but the character  
of ,paulinism does not  depend upon one 
passage4 ,everywhere in the ,epistles   
,paul stakes  all his life upon the     
truth of what he says about the death   
and  resurrection of ,jesus4 ,the gospel
 which ,paul preached was an account  of
 something that had happened4 ,if the   
account was true1 the origin  of        
,paulinism is explained2 if it was not  
true1 the ,church is based  upon an     
inexplicable error4    ,this latter     
alternative has been examined in the    
preceding  discussion4 ,if ,jesus was   
not the divine ,redeemer that ,paul says
  ,he was1 how did the ,pauline religion
 of redemption arise8 ,three  great     
hypotheses have been examined and have  
been found wanting4  ,paulinism1 it has 
been shown1 was not based upon the      
,jesus of  modern naturalism2 if ,jesus 

was only what ,he is represented by     
modern naturalistic historians as being1
 then what is really  distinctive of    
,paul was not derived from ,jesus4 ,the 
establishment  of that fact has been a  
notable achievement of ,wrede and       
,bousset4  ,but if what is essential in 
,paulinism was not derived from ,jesus1 
whence was it derived8 ,it was not      
derived1 as ,wrede believed1  from the  
pre-,christian apocalyptic notions of   
the ,messiah2 for  the apocalyptic      
,messiah was not an object of worship1  
and not a  living person to be loved4   
,it was not derived from pagan religion1
  in accordance with the brilliant      
hypothesis of ,bousset2 for pagan       
influence is excluded by the            
self-testimony of ,paul1 and the pagan  
parallels utterly break down4 ,but even 
if the parallels were ten  times closer 
than they are1 the heart of the problem 
would not even  have been touched4 ,the 
heart of the problem is found in the    
,pauline  relation to ,christ4 ,that    

relation cannot be described by mere    
enumeration of details2 it cannot be    
reduced to lower terms2 it is  an       
absolutely simple and indivisible thing4
 ,the relation of ,paul to  ,christ is a
 relation of love2 and love exists only 
between persons4  ,it is not a group of 
ideas that is to be explained1 if       
,paulinism is  to be accounted for1 but 
the love of ,paul for his ,saviour4 ,and
 that  love is rooted1 not in what      
,christ had said1 but in what ,christ   
had  done4 ,he loved me and gave        
,himself for me4 ,there lies the basis  
of  the religion of ,paul2 there lies   
the basis of all of ,christianity4      
,that basis is confirmed by the account 
of ,jesus which is given in  the        
,gospels1 and given1 indeed1 in all the 
sources4 ,it is opposed  only by modern 
reconstructions4 ,and those             
reconstructions are all  breaking down4 
,the religion of ,paul was not founded  
upon a complex  of ideas derived from   
,judaism or from paganism4 ,it was      

founded upon  the historical ,jesus4    
,but the historical ,jesus upon whom it 
was  founded was not the ,jesus of      
modern reconstruction1 but the ,jesus of
  the whole ,new ,testament and of      
,christian faith2 not a teacher who     
survived only in the memory of ,his     
disciples1 but the ,saviour who  after  
,his redeeming work was done still lived
 and could still be  loved4             
,,index    ,i ,,names ,,and ,,subjects  
,acts1 ,book of1 #cb-dj      should be  
allowed to help in interpreting the     
,pauline            ,epistles1 #abe     
,adonis1 #cad;f4      religion of1      
#bcd;f4      ,adoptionist ,christology1 
not found in ,pauline ,epistles1 #aah   
,agabus1 #cc;f41 #gh      ,agr1         
mysteries of1 #bag      ,alexander the  
,great1 #bbj      ,alexandria1 ,church  
at1 #af      ,ananias 7in ,acts71 #ga   
,ananias 7in ,josephus71 #ab            
,andronicus and ,junias1 #adj;f4        
,anrich1 #bab      ,antioch1 #bi;f41    
#gg;ff41 #abb;ff2      ,apostolic       

,decree addressed to1 #id;ff42          
,peter at1 #ig-ajf2      ,church at1 #af
      ,antioch1 pre-,pauline            
,christianity of3      not channel by   
which pagan religion influenced ,paul1  
#beg;ff42      how investigated1        
#beg-bei2      not essentially different
 from that of ,jerusalem1 #bei;f42      
did it originate application of term    
,lord to ,jesus1 #bii1 #cjc-cjg         
,apocalypses1 ,jewish1 not used by      
,paul1 #aib;f4      ,apocrypha1 ,old    
,testament1 #ahb;f4      ,apollo's1 #aji
      ,apostles1 the original3          
attitude toward ,paul at the ,apostolic 
,council1 #hf;f42      relation with    
,paul1 #abj-acg2      observed ,mosaic  
,law1 #abf-abh2      were inwardly free 
from ,law1 #abg;f42      agreed with    
,paul about the person of ,christ1      
#ace-acg2      contact with ,paul1 #aci 
,apostolic ,council1 the1 #ci1 #hj-ajj  
,apostolic ,decree1 the1 #hg-ih1 #aaj2  
was accompanied by ,judas and ,silas1   
#adj      ,apostolic ,fathers1 the1 #f  

,apuleius1 #bbb;f41 #bcc;f41 #bda       
,arabia1 ,paul's journey to1 #ga-gd     
,aretas1 #gd      ,asclepius1 the1 #bdb 
,atargatis1 #bce      ,athenodorus1 #de 
,athletic games1 use of figures         
regarding the1 by ,paul1 #bfj           
,attis1 #cad-caf2      religion of1     
#bbg-bca2      mysteries of1 #bhc       
,baals1 the ,syrian1 #bce               
,bacchanalian rites in ,italy1 #bej     
,bacon1 ,b4 ,w41 #ia1 #aci1 #aha1 #aig  
,baldensperger1 #agh1 #aib1 #bjd        
,baptism1 in pagan religion1 #bhj;f4    
,baptism for the dead1 #bhh             
,barnabas1 #af1 #gh;ff41 #hc;f41 #ii2   
was carried away with ,peter at         
,antioch1 #ajb2      dispute with ,paul1
 #aje-ajg2      relations with ,paul1   
#ajf;f42      was member of ,jerusalem  
,church1 #acg;f42      contact with     
,paul1 #acg;f4      ,barnabas1 ,epistle 
of1 #ah      ,baruch1 ,second ,book of1 
#ahj1 #aia      ,baur1 ,f4 ,c1 #f1 #ca1 
#cg1 #he1 #aje1 #ajg1 #aai;ff41 #abd;f41
 #abh;f4      ,beecher1 #ahb            

,bengel1 #ajc      ,beyschlag1 #fj1 #fc1
 #fe      ,bible1 introduction of the1  
into ,indo-,european civilization1 #bj  
,blass1 #ij      ,bhlig1 #de1 #ada1 #cjj
      ,bousset1 ,w41 #bh-cj1 #dg1 #di1  
#eb1 #fg1 #gb1 #gh1 #aef1 #afa1         
#agb-aii1          #bjd-bjg1 #bdd1      
#beg-bfb1 #bfg;f41 #bgj1 #bgd1 #bgh1    
#bic-cag      ,brckner1 #bg1 #ahe1 #aia1
 #aid;ff41 #bje;f41 #baa1 #bcd1 #cac1   
#cae      ,buddhism1 early1 #bgd        
,burton1 ,e4 ,d41 #bfg;f41 #bga         
,byblos1 #bca1 #bcd;f4      ,charles1   
#ahj1 #ahf1 #ahh1 #aij      ,christ1 the
 term1 #big;f4      ,christianity1      
origin of3      importance of the       
question1 #c;f42      two ways of       
investigating1 #d;f42      testimony of 
,paul to1 #d;f4      ,christianity1     
monotheism of1 #cjf      ,christians1   
first application of the name1 #gh      
,christology1 the ,pauline3      not    
derived from pre-,christian ,jewish     
doctrine of the ,messiah1               
#agc-bjg2      not derived from         

pre-,christian ,jewish doctrine of      
,wisdom1 #aii-bjd2      not derived from
 pagan religion1 #bic-cag               
,christ-party1 the1 at ,corinth1 #abj   
,circumcision1 #ag      ,clemen1 #bfb   
,clement of ,alexandria1 #bcj1 #bha     
,clement of ,rome1 #aje      ,coloss1   
errorists in1 #abi;f4      ,colossians1 
,epistle to the1 #ca1 #ajd              
,corinthian ,church1 parties in the1    
#ajg-aji      ,corinthians1 ,epistles to
 the1 #ca      ,cornelius1 #af1 #ai1 #hc
      ,cross of ,christ1 the1 #ai1      
#fc;f4      ,cult1 ,bousset's           
exaggeration of the importance of the1  
#cjc;ff4      ,cumont1 #bab1 #bbg;ff41  
#bcb1 #bcf1 #bdc;f41 #bdg1 #bha;f4      
,cybele1 religion of1 #h1 #bbg-bca      
,cybele and ,attis1 mysteries of1       
#bbi-bca      ,cynics1 the1 #bbe        
,dalman1 #ahg      ,damascus1 #ga;ff41  
#gf2      preaching of ,paul at1 #gb;f42
      escape of ,paul from1 #gd         
,damascus1 pre-,pauline ,christianity   
of3      how investigated1 #beg-bei2    

not channel by which pagan religion     
influenced ,paul1 #beg;ff42      not    
essentially different from that of      
,jerusalem1 #bei;f42      did it        
originate application of the term ,lord 
to ,jesus1 #bii      ,date1 question of1
 with reference to pagan ideas and      
practices1          #bcg-da      ,death 
of ,christ1 the1 was voluntary1 #cae    
,death and resurrection of ,jesus3      
historicity of1 #cab;f42      not       
derived from the cult1 #cae;f4          
,death and resurrection of pagan gods1  
the myths concerning1 thought           
to have been derived from the cults1    
#cae;f4      ,deification3 in pagan     
religion1 #bde1 #bfc2      not found in 
,paul1 #bfc-bfe      ,demeter1 #bag;f4  
,denney1 ,james1 #aee1 #cjd             
,dieterich1 #bdf;f41 #bea               
,dionysus1 #bae;f42      religion of1   
#bhb;f4      ,dispersion1 ,judaism of   
the3      was it liberal1 #age-agg2     
did not produce ,gentile mission of     
,paul1 #age;ff4      ,drews1 #bid       

,dualism of ,hellenistic age1 different 
from ,paulinism1 #bgf      ,dying and   
rising god1 the1 #baa1 #bcd;f41 #bcg1   
#cab-caf        ,ebionites1 the1 #abe;f4
      ,ecclesiasticus1 #bjj             
,eleusis1 mysteries of1 #bag-bai1 #bha  
,emmet1 #ha1 #agf1 #ahj      ,emperors1 
worship of the1 #bba      ,enoch1 ,first
 ,book of1 #aha1 #ahd1 #ahf-ahi1 #aic1  
#aih;f41 #bjc      ,epicureans1 the1    
#bbe      ,ephesians1 ,epistle to the1  
#ca1 #ajd      ,erman1 #cad             
,eschatology1 consistent1 #aef;f4       
,essenes1 #agg      ,ethics1 same       
teaching about1 in ,jesus and in ,paul1 
#afd;f4      ,eusebius1 #aci      ,ezra1
 ,fourth ,book of1 #agf1 #ahj1 #ahg1    
#ahi;f41 #aif        ,faith in ,jesus1  
did not originate at ,antioch1 #cjc;ff4 
,famine visit1 historicity of the1      
#hd-hf      ,farnell1 #bab1 #bag        
,fatherhood of ,god1 same teaching      
about1 in ,jesus and in ,paul1          
#afa-afd      ,firmicus ,maternus1 #bbi1
 #bcg1 #bda1 #bea1 #bha1 #cad           

,flesh1 ,pauline use of the term3       
without parallel in pagan usage1        
#bge;f42      based on ,old ,testament1 
#bgf      ,future life1 interest in the1
 stimulated by worship of ,dionysus and 
by ,orphism1 #baf;f4        ,galatians1 
,epistle to the3      genuineness1 #ca2 
addressees1 #ha2      date1 #ha;ff42    
must be interpreted in the light of ,i  
,cor4 xv4 #a-aa1 #add;f4      ,gamaliel1
 #dg1 #eb      ,gautama1 #bgd           
,gentile ,christianity3      in what    
sense founded by ,paul1 #g-ba2      in  
what sense founded by ,jesus1 #ac-ae2   
part in the founding of1 taken by       
missionaries other than ,paul1          
#ae;f4      ,gentiles1 reception of1    
according to the ,old ,testament1 #ag   
,gischala1 #dd      ,gnosis1 #bfb-bfe3  
idea of1 in ,paul1 #bfc-bfe2      not a 
technical term in ,paul1 #bfc           
,gnosticism1 #bdg-bea1 #bfh;f43         
pagan basis of1 #bdg2      can it be    
used as a witness to pre-,christian     
paganism1 #bdg-bej2      ,christian     

elements in1 #bdi;f42      use in1 of   
terms ,spirit and spiritual due to      
dependence on            the ,new       
,testament1 #bfh;f4      ,god1 the term1
 #cjf;f4      ,golden ,rule1 negative   
form of the1 #hh;f4      ,gospel1 the   
,pauline1 was a matter of history1      
#bfd;f4      ,gospels1 the3      contain
 an account of ,jesus like that         
presupposed in the ,pauline             
,epistles1 #aec;f42      were they      
influenced by ,paul1 #aed;f41 #aei      
,grace1 doctrine of1 both in ,jesus and 
in ,paul1 #afd      ,grace of ,god      
according to ,paul1 #bgi      ,greece1  
religion of3      influenced ,rome1     
#bab;f42      moral defects of1 #bad2   
was anthropomorphic polytheism1 #bad;f42
      was connected with the state1     
#bad;f42      mystical elements in1     
#bae;ff42      was undermined by        
philosophy1 by the fall of the          
city-state1 and            by the       
influence of the eastern religions1     
#bai;f4      ,greek language3      in   

,palestine1 #ec1 #cjb2      ,paul's use 
of1 #dd1 #df1 #ec      ,gressmann1 #aha 
,hadad1 #bce      ,harnack1 ,a4 von1    
#f;f41 #bf1 #cc-cf1 #ih1 #aai1 #bfc1    
#bgc      ,hebrew1 meaning of the word1 
#df      ,heinrici1 #bfe                
,heitmller1 #dg1 #di1 #eb1 #gf-gh1 #aeg1
 #bdc;f41 #beg-bfa1 #bfe1 #bhb;f4       
,helbig1 #df      ,hellenist1 meaning of
 the word1 #df      ,hellenistic age1   
the3      cosmopolitanism in1 #bbj2     
individualism in1 #bba2      religious  
propaganda in1 #bba;f42      syncretism 
in1 #bbb;f42      longing for redemption
 in1 #bbc;f4      ,hellenists1 the1 #cjb
      ,hepding1 #bbg-bca1 #bhc          
,hermas1 ,shepherd of1 #bdb      ,hermes
 ,trismegistus1 #bdb-bde1 #bdh;f41      
#bfa;f41 #bfe-bfg1 #bhe3      was it    
influenced by ,christianity1 #bdb;f41   
#bdg;f42      importance of1 #bdc;f42   
places soul higher than spirit1 #bdh;f42
      terminology different from        
,paul's1 #bfe-bgj      ,hermetic        
,corpus1 #bdb-bde1 #bgg      ,herod     

,agrippa ,i1 death of1 #gi              
,hilgenfeld1 #ij      ,hippolytus1 #bah1
 #bdi;f4      ,holstein1 #fc-fe1 #gf    
,holtzmann1 ,h4 ,j41 #bb      ,homer1   
#bac;f4        ,illumination1 the term1 
#bgc      ,initiated1 to be1 use of the 
verb by ,paul1 #bga;f4      ,irenus1 #hi
      ,isis1 religion of1 #h;f4         
,isis1 mysteries of1 #bcb;ff41      had 
sacramental washings according to       
,tertullian1 #bha      ,isis and        
,osiris1 religion of1 #bca-bcd          
,izates of ,adiabene1 #ab        ,james1
 #id1 #ih3      contact of with ,paul1  
#ge1 #aji-aac1 #acg2      men who came  
from1 #aja2      attitude of1 toward    
,paul1 #aaa;f42      attitude of ,paul  
toward1 #abj;ff42      called the       
brother of the ,lord1 #bii;f4           
,jerome1 #dd      ,jerusalem ,church1   
the1 #bic-cjc3      attitude of1 toward 
the ,law1 #ai2      relief of the poor  
of1 #ii;f41 #ajd1 #aab;f42      new     
principle of the life of1 #abg2         
community of goods in1 #ach2            

contact of1 with ,paul1 #aci2           
treasured tradition about ,jesus1 #aci2 
direct influence of1 upon ,paul1        
#beh;f42      use of the term ,lord by1 
#bid-cjc      ,jesus ,christ3           
historicity of1 #e2      in what sense  
founder of the ,gentile mission1 #ac-ae2
      ,pauline conception of1 #bb2      
deification of1 according to modern     
liberalism1 #bb-bd2      ,messiahship   
of1 according to the liberal hypothesis1
 #be2      consciousness of sonship1    
according to the liberal hypothesis1    
#be2      importance of1 in the liberal 
explanation of the origin of            
,paulinism1 #be2      ,messiahship of1  
according to ,bousset1 #bi2             
,lordship of1 according to ,bousset1    
#bi;f42      divinity of1 disputed by no
 one in the ,apostolic ,age1 #abi-acg2  
knowledge of1 according to ,paul1       
#adb-add2      words of1 in ,pauline    
,epistles1 #adg-adi2      details of the
 life of1 known to ,paul1 #adi;f42      
character of1 appreciated by ,paul1     

#aej;f42      comparison of1 with ,paul1
 #aec-afi2      presented ,himself as   
,messiah1 #aee-aeh2      personal       
affinity of1 with ,paul1 #afe2          
regarded by ,paul as a ,redeemer1 not as
 a mere teacher1 #afg-afi      ,jesus   
,christ1 the liberal account of3        
attested by none of the sources1 #aee2  
involves psychological contradiction1   
#aee-aeh2      cannot explain the origin
 of the belief in the divine ,redeemer1 
#aeh;f4      ,john1 #ih1 went to        
,ephesus1 #abh      ,jones1 ,maurice1   
#ha      ,josephus1 #gi1 #agg1 #ahc     
,juda1 ,churches of1 #ej-eb1 #ge;f4     
,judaism3      missionary activity of1  
#i-aa2      prepared for ,pauline       
mission1 #aj;f42      did not produce   
,christian universalism1 #aa-ac2        
had no doctrine of the vicarious death  
of the ,messiah1 #fe1 #aif;ff42         
divisions within1 #age-agg2      did not
 serve as medium for pagan influence    
upon ,paul1 #bee;f4      ,judaism1      
rabbinical1 #agf      ,judas1 #adj      

,judaizers1 the1 #ai1 #hf1 #ih1 #aba1   
#abe;f41 #abh1 #aca1 #ace1 #bgh3        
activity of1 subsided during the third  
missionary journey1 #ajd1               
#ajg2      did not dispute ,paul's      
doctrine of the person of ,christ1      
#abi-acg      ,judgment1 teaching about1
 both in ,jesus and in ,paul1 #afd      
,justification1 ,pauline idea of3       
can find no analogy in ,hermes          
,trismegistus1 #bgg2      importance of1
 in ,paul's thinking1 #bgg-bgi2      not
 produced merely as weapon against the  
,judaizers1 #bgh;f42      intimately    
connected with the doctrine of the new  
creation1 #bgi      ,justin ,martyr1    
#ahe1 #aif1 #bcf1 #bgc1 #bha            
,juvenal1 #bbg        ,kabeiri1 the1    
#bai      ,kennedy1 ,h4 ,a4 ,a41 #aah1  
#bcc1 #bfb1 #bha      ,kingdom of ,god1 
same teaching about1 in ,jesus and in   
,paul1 #afj;f4      ,knowling1 #ajd1    
#aji1 #adg1 #bii      ,koin1 the1 #bbj  
,krenkel1 #dd;f41 #ei      ,kroll1 ,j41 
#bdb1 #bdd1 #bdi1 #bfi      ,kroll1 ,w41

 #bdb1 #bde      ,kykeon1 the1 #bah1    
#bha        ,laborers in the vineyard1  
parable of the1 #afd      ,lake1        
,kirsopp1 #ab;f41 #ha;f41 #hi1 #ih      
,lake and ,jackson1 #ahf      ,law1 the 
ceremonial1 attitude of ,jesus toward1  
#ad;f4      ,law1 the ,mosaic3          
function of1 according to ,paul1 #ah2   
attitude of the early ,jerusalem ,church
 toward1 #ai2      observance of1 by    
,jewish ,christians1 #ib;f41 #aja;f42   
,jewish ,christians zealous for1 #aaj2  
added to1 by the ,jews1 #agh2           
,paul's early zeal for1 #bef            
,legalism1 ,jewish1 #agh-aha            
,lexical method of determining questions
 of dependence1 #bfb      ,liberalism1  
was not the method of ,paul in founding 
,gentile          ,christianity1 #ag    
,liberal ,judaism1 was not the          
atmosphere of ,paul's boyhood home1 #dg1
          #bef      ,lietzmann1 #abg    
,lightfoot1 ,j4 ,b41 #dg1 #aai          
,lipsius1 #gb      ,livy1 #bej          
,loisy1 #dg1 #gf1 #bbi1 #bfb      ,lord1

 the1 connected by ,paul with the       
,spirit1 #caa;ff4      ,lord1 the term3 
applied by ,paul to the ,jesus who was  
on earth1 #aag;f42      use of1 in      
primitive ,jerusalem ,church1 #bid-cjc2 
occurrence of1 in the ,gospels1         
#bie-bih2      the ,aramaic basis of1   
#cja2      received ,greek form in      
,jerusalem1 #cja;f42      not for the   
first time applied to ,jesus at         
,antioch1 #cjc;ff42      use of1 in     
pagan religion1 #cje;f42      use of1 in
 the ,septuagint1 #cjg;f4      ,lord's  
,supper1 the3      account of           
institution of1 #adh;f41 #aea;f42       
was thought by ,justin ,martyr to be    
imitated in religion of                 
,mithras1 #bcf2      comparison of1 with
 pagan rites1 #bha-bhc2      not        
dependent upon pagan notion of eating   
the god1 #bhb;f4      ,lucian1 #bbe1    
#bcd;f41 #bda      ,luke1 #cf;f4        
,lycaonia1 ,apostolic ,decree extended  
into1 #id        ,maccabees1 ,fourth    
,book of1 #aif      ,magic3 affinity of1

 for the mysteries1 #bdf2               
difference of1 from religion1 #bdf      
,magical papyri1 the1 #bdf;f4      ,mar1
 the term1 #cjj;f4      ,maranatha1     
#cjj;f4      ,marcion1 #ah      ,marcus 
,aurelius1 #bbf      ,mark1 ,john1 #aje1
 #ajf1 #ajg2      relations of1 with    
,paul and with ,peter1 #ach;f4          
,marriage1 the sacred1 #bcj             
,master1 the term1 applied to ,jesus1   
#cjh      ,mead1 #bdd      ,meals1      
sacred1 in the mystery religions1       
#bha-bhc      ,menander1 #bga           
,mnard1 #bdd      ,messiah1 the3        
doctrines of1 in ,old ,testament1       
#aha;f42      doctrine of1 in ,judaism1 
#ahb;ff42      ,old ,testament basis for
 later doctrine of1 #aia2               
pre-,christian doctrine of1 exalted by  
identification with          ,jesus1    
#bjd      ,messiah1 the apocalyptic3    
was different from the ,pauline ,christ1
 #aid-aii2      had no part in creation1
 #aid2      had no intimate relation to 
the believer1 #aid-aig2      was not    

divine1 #aig-aii2      what could have  
led to his identification with ,jesus1  
#bje;f4      ,mind1 the term1 in ,hermes
 ,trismegistus1 #bfg;f41 not produced by
          philosophical modification of 
the term ,spirit      ,mind1 not the    
same thing as ,spirit in ,i ,cor4 ii4   
#ae1 #af1 #bfi      ,miracles3          
objection drawn from accounts of1       
against ,lucan authorship of            
,acts1 #cc-cg2      cannot be separated 
from the ,gospel account of ,jesus1     
#aed;f4      ,mithras1 mysteries of1    
#bcf1 #bef3      had sacramental        
washings according to ,tertullian1 #bha2
      bread and cup in1 #bha;f4         
,mithras1 religion of1 #h;f41 #bce-bcg  
,mithras-liturgy1 the so-called1 #bdg1  
#bea1 #bfg      ,mnason1 #aab           
,mommsen1 #df;f4      ,montefiore1      
#agf;f4      ,morgan1 ,w41 #aah1 #afd   
,moulton and ,milligan1 #bha            
,murray1 ,gilbert1 #bbc      ,mystery1  
the term1 in ,paul1 #bgb;f4             
,mystery religions1 the1 #bbg;ff43      

did not produce ,gentile ,christianity1 
#h;f42      were tolerant of other      
faiths1 #i2      information about1 in a
 ,naassene writing1 #bdi;f42            
technical vocabulary of1 #bfb;ff42      
idea of gnosis in1 #bfb-bfe2      not   
the source of ,paul's doctrine of the   
,spirit1 #bgj2      probably had not    
dominated many converts of ,paul1 #bgc2 
produced no strong consciousness of sin1
 #bgf2      did not produce the ,pauline
 teaching about the sacraments1 #bgi-bij
      ,mysticism1 pagan1 #bci;ff4       
,naassenes1 sect of the1 #bdi;f4        
,neutral text1 the1 #hg;ff4             
,oepke1 #bfd;f41 #bgc      ,old         
,catholic ,church1 #f1 #aai;f43         
founded on unity between ,peter and     
,paul1 #ajd;f4      ,olschewski1 #aid   
,oracula ,chaldaica1 the1 #bde;f4       
,orphism1 #baf;f4      ,osiris1 #bbi1   
#bca;ff41 #cad;f4        ,pagan         
religion3      through what channels    
could it have influenced ,paul1         
#bee-bfa2      did it influence ,paul   

directly1 #bfj;f4      ,papias1 #aci    
,parthey1 #bdd4      ,particularism1 in 
the ,old ,testament1 #ag      ,pastoral 
,epistles1 the1 #ca;f4      ,paul3      
testimony of1 as to origin of           
,christianity1 #d;f42      influence of1
 #f-ba2      geographical extent of the 
labors of1 #af;f42      importance of   
the theology of1 in foundation of       
,gentile mission1            #ag-bj2    
in what ways a witness about the origin 
of ,christianity1 #ba2      the genius  
of1 not incompatible with the truth of  
his witnessing1            #ba2         
monotheism of1 #bc2      sources of     
information about1 #ca-dj2      birth   
of1 at ,tarsus1 #dc;f42      ,roman     
citizenship of1 #de;f42      ,pharisaism
 of1 #df;f42      was not a liberal     
,jew1 #dg1 #age;ff42      was in        
,jerusalem before conversion1 #dg-ec2   
rabbinical training of1 #eb;f42      did
 he see ,jesus before the conversion1   
#ed-eg2      knew about ,jesus before   
the conversion1 #eg;f41 #ff;f42         

conversion of1 #eh-fh1 #ade-adg1 #bje1  
#cje2      malady of1 #eh;f42      did  
he have the consciousness of sin before 
his conversion1 #fd-ff2      the        
conversion of1 involved meeting with a  
person1 #fg;f42      baptism of1 #ga2   
at ,damascus1 #ga;ff42      went to     
,arabia1 #ga-gd2      escaped from      
,damascus1 #gd2      rebuked ,peter1    
#ig1 #ajb2      division of labor with  
,peter1 #ii;f42      first visit of1 to 
,jerusalem1 #gd-gg2      in ,syria and  
,cilicia1 #gg2      at ,antioch1 #gh2   
famine visit of1 to ,jerusalem1 #gh;ff42
      agreed with ,peter in principle1  
#ajb1 #abc;f42      relations of1 with  
,peter1 #ajb-aje1 #acg2      dispute of1
 with ,barnabas1 #aje-ajg2              
relations of1 with ,barnabas1 #ajf;f41  
#acg;f42      relations of1 with ,james1
 #aji-aac2      participation of1 in a  
,jewish vow1 #aaj;f42      has been     
regarded by the ,church as a disciple of
 ,jesus1 #aag2      regarded himself as 
a disciple of ,jesus1 #aag;f42      was 

regarded as a disciple of ,jesus by     
,jesus' friends1 #aah-acg2      attitude
 of1 toward ,peter1 #abj;ff42           
attitude of1 toward ,james1 #abj;ff42   
rebuked ,peter1 #abb-abd2      had      
abundant sources of information about   
,jesus1 #acg-adb2      relations of1    
with ,mark1 #ach;f42      contact of1   
with the original apostles and with the 
,jerusalem            ,church1 #aci2    
contact of1 with ,silas1 #adj2      the 
gospel of1 in what sense did he receive 
it directly from            ,christ1    
#ade-adg2      meaning of the conversion
 of1 for him1 #ade-adg2      shows      
knowledge of words of ,jesus1 #adg-adi2 
shows knowledge of details of ,jesus'   
life1 #adi;f42      shows appreciation  
of ,jesus' character1 #aej;f42      knew
 more about ,jesus than he has told in  
the ,epistles1 #aea-aec2      comparison
 of1 with ,jesus1 #aec-afi2             
personal affinity of1 with ,jesus1 #afe2
      was not a disciple of the liberal 
,jesus1 #aff-afi2      his              

pre-conversion belief about the         
,messiah1 #aib-aid2      was not        
dependent upon the ,jewish apocalypses1 
#aib;f42      personal relation of1 to  
,christ1 was not derived from mere      
reflection on the death of the ,messiah1
 #aid-aig2      similarity of1 to       
,jesus1 not explained by common         
dependence on            ,judaism1 #bjf2
      the gospel of1 was a matter of    
history1 #bfd;f42      how far did he   
use a terminology derived from the      
mysteries1            #bga-bgc          
,pauline ,epistles1 the genuineness of1 
#ca;f4      ,paulinism3      required   
exclusive devotion1 #i2      was a      
religion of redemption1 #bb1 #afg-afi2  
doctrine of the person of ,christ in1   
was not disputed even by                
,judaizers1 #abi-acg2      was          
supernaturalistic1 #bhh;f42      was not
 external1 #bhi;f42      was            
individualistic1 #cji;ff42      was not 
developed from the cult1 #cji;ff42      
was personal1 #caa;f41 #cag2      was   

historical1 #caf      ,paulinism1 the   
origin of3      four ways of explaining1
 #bd;ff42      supernaturalistic        
explanation of1 #bd2      liberal       
explanation of1 #bd-bf2      radical    
explanations of1 #bf;ff42      found in 
pre-,christian ,judaism by ,wrede and   
,brckner1 #bg;f42      found in paganism
 by ,bousset1 #cj2      not really      
explained by development from the       
liberal ,jesus1            #aag-afi2    
not really explained by ,judaism1       
#agc-bjg2      not really explained by  
paganism1 #baa-cag      ,persephone1    
#bah      ,personality1 idea of1 #bjb;f4
      ,peter3      received ,cornelius1 
#af2      with ,paul in ,jerusalem1     
#ge-gg2      at ,antioch1 #ig-ajf2      
rebuked by ,paul1 #ig1 #ajb1 #abb-abd2  
division of labor with ,paul1 #ii;f42   
relations of1 with ,paul1 #ajb-aje2     
attitude of ,paul toward1 #abj;ff42     
agreed with ,paul in principle1 #abc;f42
      not in harmony with ,ebionism1    
#abe;f42      went to ,rome1 #abg;f42   

contact with ,paul1 #acg2      relations
 of1 with ,mark1 #aci      ,pharisaism1 
not influenced by pagan religion1       
#bee;f4      ,pharisees1 the1 #agg      
,philemon1 ,epistle to1 #ca             
,philippians1 ,epistle to the1 #ca1 #ajd
      ,philo1 #ahc1 #bej;f43      use of
 term ,spirit by1 due to ,old           
,testament1 #bfh      ,philosophy3      
undermined the religion of ,greece1     
#bai2      practical interest of1 in the
 ,hellenistic age1 #bbd;ff4      ,plato1
 #bbd;f41 #bge      ,plooij1 #ha        
,plutarch1 #bca1 #bcf      ,poimandres1 
the1 #bdb-bde      ,posidonius1 #bbe1   
#bej      ,princeton ,biblical ,studies1
 #g1 #ag1 #cg1 #aag      ,princeton     
,theological ,review1 #cg1 #gh1 #aee    
,psalms of ,solomon1 #aij1 #aic         
,pseudepigrapha of the ,old ,testament1 
#ahb      ,ptolemy #a1 #bca             
,pythagoreanism1 #bag        ,ramsay1   
#de1 #ef1 #ha      ,rationalizing1      
revived by ,torrey and others1 #cd      
,redemption3      ,paulinism a religion 

of1 #bb1 #afg-afi2      was desired in  
the ,hellenistic age1 #bbc;f42          
value of1 #bbd2      in pagan religion  
and in ,paul1 #bee-bgi2      idea of1 in
 ,hellenistic age1 #bgd;ff42      idea  
of1 not an abnormal thing1 #bge2        
,pauline conception of1 was not derived 
from pagan cults1 #bgd;ff42             
,pauline idea of1 involves salvation    
from sin1 #bgf;f4      ,regeneration3   
in pagan religion1 #bcj1 #bcc1 #bdj;f41 
#bdd;f42      associated1 in ,paul1 with
 justification1 #bgi      ,reitzenstein1
 ,r41 #bdb-bdd1 #bdf1 #bdh;ff41 #bgd1   
#bgg1 #bfb-bhj      ,religion and       
theology3      union of1 according to   
,wrede1 #bg2      separation of1        
according to the liberal hypothesis1    
#be;f42      not to be separated in     
,paul1 #aff;ff4      ,revelation1 ,book 
of1 #abj      ,ritschl1 ,a41 #f1 #ch;f41
 #aai;f41 #abe      ,ritschlian         
theology1 the1 #bc      ,rohde1 #bab1   
#bbc      ,romans1 ,epistle to the3     
genuineness of1 #ca2      date of1      

#ha;f42      can it be used in the      
reconstruction of the pre-,pauline      
,christianity of ,damascus and ,antioch1
 #bei      ,rome1 ,church at1 #af       
,rome1 the native religion of1 #bab;f4  
,sabazius1 #bae      ,sacraments1 the   
,pauline3      were not derived from the
 mystery religions1 #bgi-bij2      did  
not convey blessing ex opere operato1   
#bhc-bhh2      were outward signs of an 
inner experience1 #bhf;f4               
,sadducees1 the1 #agg      ,samothrace1 
the mysteries of1 #bai      ,schrer1    
#bc1 #fe1 #gi1 #aef1 #ahj1 #ahc1 #ahf1  
#aij1 #aif      ,seneca1 #bbf           
,septuagint1 importance of the1 #cjg;f4 
,serapis1 religion of1 #bcb;ff4         
,servant coming in from the field1      
parable of the1 #afd      ,sethe1 #bha  
,showerman1 #bbg1 #bca      ,sieffert1  
#gb      ,silas1 #af3      contact of1  
with ,paul1 #adj2      was member of the
 ,jerusalem ,church1 #adj      ,sin1    
consciousness of3 in ,judaism1 #agh-aha2
      in ,paul1 #bgf;f4      ,smith1 ,w4

 ,b41 #bid      ,solomon1 ,psalms of1   
#ahd      ,son of ,man1 the3      in ,i 
,enoch1 #aha1 #ahf;ff42      origin and 
meaning of the title1 #ahg;ff42         
idea of1 dominated the early ,jerusalem 
,church1 according to                   
,bousset1 #bic;f41 #bih      ,soul3     
placed higher than spirit in ,hermes    
,trismegistus and lower than            
,spirit in ,paul1 #bdh;f41 #bfg;f42     
conception of the1 in ,paul1 #bff;ff4   
,spirit3      placed lower than soul in 
,hermes ,trismegistus and 7when the word
            designates the ,spirit of   
,god7 higher than soul in ,paul1        
#bdh;f41 #bfg;f42      no evidence of   
popular pagan use of the term analogous 
to ,pauline            usage1 #bfg-bgj2 
,greek materialistic use of the term1   
#bfg2      use of the term in ,philo    
shows influence of the ,old ,testament1 
#bfh2      use of the term in           
,gnosticism due to dependence on ,new   
,testament1            #bfh;f42      use
 of the term in ,menander1 #bgj         

,spirit1 ,pauline conception of the1    
#bfe-bga3      different from that in   
mystery religions1 #bfe1 #bgj2      does
 not make the divine ,spirit take the   
place of the human soul1                
#bff2      has roots in the ,old        
,testament1 #bgj;f42      brings        
enrichment of ,old ,testament teaching1 
#bgj2      not derived from paganism1   
#caj2      ,bousset's view of1 #caj;ff4 
,spiritual man3      contrast with      
psychic man1 #bfe-bgj2      the term not
 in accord with the terminology of      
,hermes            ,trismegistus1       
#bff;ff4      ,stephen1 #af1 #ai1 #ff   
,stobus1 #bdb      ,stoics1 the3        
humanitarian achievements of1 #bbe;f42  
humanitarian ideal of1 differed from    
,christian ideal1 #bbe;f4      ,strauss1
 #cd      ,supernaturalism in ,paul's   
religion1 #bhh;f4      ,syncretism1     
#bbb;f41 #bcg;ff41 #bfb      ,syria3    
religion of1 #gg2      use of the term  
,lord in1 #cjj      ,syria and ,cilicia1
 #gg3      the ,apostolic ,decree       

addressed to1 #id;ff4        ,tammuz1   
#bcd      ,tarsus1 #dc;f41 #gg3      did
 not bring pagan influences effectively 
to bear upon ,paul1            #bef;f42 
,christianity of1 did it originate      
application of the term ,lord           
to ,jesus1 #bii      ,taurobolium1      
#bcj;f41 #bdj;f41 #bea      ,teleios1   
the term1 in ,paul1 #bgb;f4             
,terminology1 not necessarily important 
as establishing dependence in           
ideas1 #bgb      ,terminology of the    
mysteries1 the technical1 does not      
appear in the          ,new ,testament1 
#bgc      ,tertullian1 #bha             
,testaments of the ,twelve ,patriarchs1 
#aij      ,thessalonians1 ,epistles to  
the1 #ca1 #hb      ,thrace1 religion of1
 #bae;f4      ,titus1 #hc      ,torrey1 
,c4 ,c41 #cd      ,townshend1 #aif      
,tradition1 ,paul not indifferent       
toward1 #adb-aec      ,trypho1 ,dialogue
 with1 #ahe1 #aif      ,tbingen ,school1
 the1 #ca1 #cg1 #ii1 #ajh;f41 #aaj      
,vegetation gods1 #bce      ,vespasian1 

#ahc      ,volz1 #aij      ,vos1        
,geerhardus1 #bff1 #bie                 
,warfield1 ,b4 ,b41 #aih1 #cjf          
,weber1 #ha      ,weiss1 ,b41 #gb       
,weiss1 ,j41 #dj1 #ef1 #he1 #ajg1 #abe1 
#aeb1 #aed1 #aef1 #cad      ,wellhausen1
 #eb1 #ach      ,wendland1 #bab         
,wendt1 #id;f4      ,wernle1 #cab       
,westcott and ,hort1 #hi      ,western  
text1 the1 #hh;ff4      ,wicked         
husbandmen1 parable of1 #ae             
,windisch1 ,h41 #aii-bjd1 #bdc          
,wisdom1 in ,pauline ,epistles1 not     
identified with ,christ1 #bjc;f4        
,wisdom1 in pre-,christian ,judaism3    
will not account for the ,pauline       
,christology1 #aii-bjd2      is active  
in creation1 #bjj2      enters into the 
wise men1 #bjj2      is not expected to 
appear at a definite time1 #bjj;f42     
is not identified with the ,messiah1    
#bja-bjd2      is not fully personal1   
#bjb;f4      ,wisdom of ,solomon1 #bjj  
,witkowski1 #bhj      ,wrede1 ,w41      
#bf-bh1 #fg1 #aef1 #aff1 #agb-aii1      

#bjd-bjg1 #bgh1 #cag        ,zahn1 ,th41
 #dd1 #ec1 #gb1 #ij1 #aai1 #cjb         
,zeller1 ,e41 #cg      ,zielinski1 #bdb 
,,ii ,,biblical ,,passages              
,,old ,,testament      ,psalms--        
li4 #aa1 #bgj;f4      cx4 #a1 #bif      
cx4 #c 7lxx71 #bja      ,proverbs--     
viii1 #aii;f4      ,isaiah--      ix1   
#aia      xi1 #aia      liii1 #fc1 #fe1 
#aha      lxv4 #ag1 #aia      ,ezekiel--
      viii4 #ad1 #bcd      ,daniel--    
vii4 #ac1 #ahh1 #aia      vii4 #ah1 #aia
      ,micah--      v4 #b 7lxx71 #bja   
,,new ,,testament      ,matthew--       
v4 #de1 #afb      vii4 #ba1 #bif        
xxi4 #da1 #ae      xxviii4 #ai1 #bj1 #ad
      ,mark--      iii4 #g1 #h1 #ea     
vii4 #ae1 #ae      x4 #de1 #aed1 #aei   
xi4 #c1 #big      xii4 #ce-cg1 #bif     
,luke--      iii4 #ae1 #ahd      vi4    
#ce1 #afb      vi4 #df1 #bif            
,john--      i4 #ai-bg1 #ahd      vi1   
#bhb      ,acts--      ii4 #cf1 #bie    
iv4 #cf1 #cg1 #acg;f4      vi4 #a1 #df1 
#cjb      vii4 #ef1 #bih      vii4      

#eh-viii4 #a1 #dg      ix4 #a1 #dg      
ix4 #aj-ai1 #ga      ix4 #ai1 #gb       
ix4 #bb1 #gb      ix4 #bc1 #gb      ix4 
#bf-cj1 #gc1 #gd-gf      ix4 #bg1 #ge   
ix4 #bh1 #ea      x4 #da1 #ce      xi4  
#ai-cj1 #gi      xi4 #bf1 #gh      xi4  
#cj1 #gh;ff4      xii1 #gh      xii4    
#a-ag1 #ach      xii4 #be1 #gh;ff4      
xiii-xiv1 #ig      xv1 #ci1 #adj        
xv4 #a-bi1 #hj-ajj1 #aci      xv4 #ai1  
#bj1 #hg      xv4 #ba1 #ib      xv4 #bc1
 #id      xv4 #bg1 #adj      xv4 #bh1   
#bi1 #hg-ih      xvi4 #d1 #id      xxi4 
#ag1 #aji1 #aab      xxi4 #bj-bf1       
#aa,of4      xxi4 #bj-bb1 #aac      xxi4
 #bj1 #aaj      xxi4 #be1 #hg1 #ia      
xxi4 #bf1 #aaj      xxii4 #c1 #dg       
xxii4 #ab-af1 #ga      xxii4 #ag-ba1    
#di1 #gd      xxiii4 #f1 #df;f4         
xxiii4 #af-bb1 #di      xxiv4 #ag1 #aab 
xxvi4 #ad1 #fj-fb      ,romans--      i4
 #g1 #hb      vi1 #bhd1 #bhf;f4      vi4
 #d1 #bhf      vi4 #g1 #bgg      vii1   
#fc;ff4      vi4 #g-be1 #fe;f4          
viii4 #af1 #bff      viii4 #cj1 #bgg    

ix4 #e1 #aih      xiv1 #ic      xiv4    
#ag1 #afa      xv4 #b1 #c1 #aej      xv4
 #h1 #adi      xv4 #ca1 #aab;f4         
xvi1 #ada      xvi4 #g1 #adj;f4      #a 
,corinthians--      i-iv1 #ajh      i4  
#ab1 #ajg;f41 #aji1 #abj      i4 #ag1   
#bhe      i4 #bc1 #cad;f4      i4 #bd1  
#bjc      i4 #cj1 #bjc      ii4 #f1 #g1 
#bgb;f4      ii4 #h1 #aag;f4      ii4   
#ad1 #ae1 #bfe-bfg      ii4 #ae1 #af1   
#bfi      iii4 #ba1 #bb1 #aji      iii4 
#bb1 #ajd      vi4 #i1 #afj      vii4   
#aj1 #adg      vii4 #ab1 #adg      vii4 
#be1 #adg      viii1 #ic      viii4 #e1 
#f1 #cje;f4      viii4 #f1 #aid      ix4
 #e1 #ajd      ix4 #f1 #ajf      ix4    
#ad1 #adg      ix4 #ai-bb1 #ib;f41 #aaj 
ix4 #bj1 #aaa      ix4 #bb1 #bfj      x4
 #af1 #bhb      x4 #bj1 #bhc      x4    
#ba1 #bhb;f4      x4 #cb-xi4 #a1 #aea   
xi4 #a1 #aej      xi4 #bc;ff41 #adh;f41 
#aea;f4      xi4 #bc1 #adi      xi4 #cj1
 #bhh      xii4 #h1 #bfc      xiii1 #ff 
xiv4 #cg1 #adg      xv4 #a-aa1 #ajd1    
#abd;f41 #add;f4      xv4 #a-h1 #caf    

xv4 #a-g1 #beh;f4      xv4 #c-h1 #ce    
xv4 #c-g1 #gf      xv4 #c1 #add;f41 #adi
      xv4 #d1 #adi      xv4 #e1 #gg1    
#ajd      xv4 #aa1 #gg1 #ajd1 #aji      
xv4 #bi1 #bhh      xv4 #ej1 #afa        
xvi4 #bb1 #cjj;f4      #b ,corinthians--
      iii4 #a1 #ajh      iii4 #ag1 #caa 
v4 #af1 #ed-ef1 #acj;f41 #adb-add       
viii4 #i1 #aej      x-xiii1 #ajg1 #aji1 
#aca;f4      x4 #a1 #aej      xi4 #d-f1 
#aca-ace      xi4 #e1 #ajh;f41 #acc     
xi4 #ac1 #aji      xi4 #ai1 #bj1 #acd   
xi4 #bb1 #df      xi4 #be1 #de      xii4
 #a-h1 #ei;f4      xii4 #b-d1 #bfd      
xii4 #aa1 #ajh;f4      ,galatians--     
i-ii1 #add-adg      i4 #a1 #aii      i4 
#ad1 #dg      i4 #af1 #ag1 #gd      i4  
#af1 #ga      i4 #ag1 #ej      i4 #ah1  
#ai1 #gd-gf1 #hd1 #cjj      i4 #ah1 #gi 
i4 #ai1 #ge1 #bii;f4      i4 #bb1       
#ej-eb1 #ge      i4 #bc1 #eb      ii4   
#a-aj1 #gh-ajj1 #ajd1 #aba;f41 #aci     
ii4 #a1 #hd1 #acg      ii4 #b1 #abj;ff4 
ii4 #f1 #hg1 #ie1 #abj;ff4      ii4 #i1 
#ajj1 #ajd1 #abj;ff4      ii4 #aj1      

#ii;f4      ii4 #aa-ba1 #hg1 #ic1       
#ajj-ajf1 #abb-abd      ii4 #aa-ac1 #ig 
ii4 #ad-ba1 #abc;f4      ii4 #ai1 #ajc  
ii4 #bj1 #aej      ii4 #ba1 #bgi        
iii4 #a1 #adi;f4      iii4 #b1 #bhg     
iii4 #e1 #bga;f4      iii4 #bg1 #bhg    
iv4 #ad1 #ei;f4      v4 #ai-ba1 #afj    
vi4 #c1 #aba      ,philippians--        
ii4 #e;ff41 #aej      ii4 #aj1 #aa1 #aah
      iii4 #b;ff41 #ajd      iii4 #e1   
#df1 #dg      iv4 #ab1 #bga;f4          
,colossians--      i4 #af1 #aid      ii4
 #ab1 #bhd      iv4 #aj1 #aa1 #ajg      
iv4 #aj1 #aje;f41 #ach      #a          
,thessalonians--      i4 #f1 #aea       
iv4 #ae1 #adg;f4      #a ,timothy--     
i4 #ac1 #fa      #b ,timothy--      iv4 
#aa1 #ajf      ,philemon--      #bd1    
#aje1 #ajg1 #ach      #a ,peter--       
v4 #ac1 #aje1 #aci             99       
99       99       99       99           
,transcriber's note3    ,text enclosed  
by underscores is in italics 7italics74 
,small capital text has been replaced   
with all capitals4    ,variations in    

spelling1 punctuation and hyphenation   
have been  retained except in obvious   
cases of typographical error4    ,the   
cover for the e,book version of this    
book was created by the  transcriber and
 is placed in the public domain4        
,page #bd3 customary and then use it in 
distinction-- ,the  transcriber has     
replaced than with then4    ,page #cjg3 
,in footnote #bcc the transcriber has   
replaced the scrambled  ,greek letters  
otsdesp with despots4