PASTOR
-2. to YEC. crif. hy#otheses concerning Pent. (1885) ; J. Miiller,
Versuch. Sb. d. Ursjr. u. diegeschichtl. Entwickl. des Pesach-
Mazzot.Fertes (1883) ; R. Schlfer, Das Passah-Mazzot-Fest
nach seincm Urs#rungn. s. w. (1900). Trumbull The Blood-
covenant (1893) 230-238 ; T b Thv&ld Covinant (1896),
203-222 ; the ‘Commentaries on Exodus, Leviticus, and
Deuteronomy ; the Archreologies of Saalschutz, D e Wetre
Ewald Keil Benzinger Nowack De Visser; the relativi
section’s in t i e works 0,‘ biblical iheology by, Vatke, Oehler,
Schultz Smend hlarti Riehm; the article Passah’ in the
dictionaries of Wiener, h h e n k e l (Dillmann), Riehm (Delitzsch),
Herzog. For the later Jewish customs see Bartolocci, Bi6liotbca
magna mbbinica (r657&), 2 7 3 6 8 ; Lund, Die aifenjudischen
Heiiigtirmer, herausyrgeben won Muhl (1704), 9g1& ; Otho,
Lex. ra66in. : Schroder, Satzungen und GedrEuche des
talmudisch-rab6inischen judentums (1851) ; Franz Delitzsch,
‘Der Passahritus PUT Zeit des zweiten Tempels’ in Ztschr. f u r
Zuth. Theol. und Kirche (1855). 2 5 7 8 I. B.
See S HEPHERD , M INISTRY , § 47.
PASTOR.
PASTORAL EPISTLES, the name given to three
epistles which bear the name of Paul, and of which two
are addressed to Timothy and one to Titus. They are
marked off from the other Padine epistles by certain
common characteristics of langriage and subject-matter,
and are called ’ pastoral ’ because they consist almost
exclusively of admonitions for the pastoral administra-
tion of Christian communities. None of the Pauline
epistles have given greater ground for discussion. As
they now stand, they are commonly denied by modern
critics to Paul, though efforts are being made to
find some partial justification of the church tradition
(cp E PISTOLARY L ITERATURE . 3 7, n. z ; col. 1327).
See T IMOTHY (E PISTLES ), T ITUS (E PISTLE ).
Patara is de-
PATARA ( ~ A T A P + , ’ Acts 21 I).
scribed as a ‘great city with a harbour, and temples
of Apollo ’ (Strabo, 6 6 6 ) . It lay 5 or 6 m. SE. of the
mouth of the river Xanthus, and was, in fact, the port
of the city of Xanthus which lay IO stades up the river
(Appian, B C 4 8 1 , BpoG~os 8s I I d s a p ~ d7rb Edueou
K U T ~ ~ &hrv
C , Q O ~ K U ~ U 6U r i v d ~
XavBiwv). It gained its
importance from its situation on the SW. coast of
Lycia, due E. of Rhodes, and consequently on the
track of ships trading between the E g e a n and the
Levant. Therefore Paul, after passing Rhodes, came
to Patara, voyaging from Macedonia to Palestine, and
there found ‘ a ship sailing over unto Phcenicia.’ The
course thence was S. of Cyprus directly to Tyre ( v . 3).
It would seem that, for ships sailing to Syria, Patara
was the point of departure for the direct run through
the open sea (correct force of Giu7rep&~ in v. 2 ) ; whilst,
for those going in the opposite direction, Myra, which
lay about 35 m. to the E., was the point at which the
Karamanian coast was struck (cp Acts 275). A good
parallel to the entire voyage of Paul on this occasion is
found in Livy 37 1 6 , for ~ this must at all times have been
the highway of maritime traffic. T h e connection of
Patara with Phcenicia is illustrated by the fact that,
during the war of Rome with Antiochus (190 B .c.),
C. Livins was stationed there in order to intercept the
Syrian fleet (Livy, 37 15).
Owing to its commercial importance, Ptolemy Philadelphus
of Egypt improved the city, and renamed it ‘the Lycian
Arsinoe’ (‘ApoivBqi i w A v x ~Strabo,
~, 666); but this title soon fell
into disuse. T h e temple and oracle of Apollo at Patara were
celebrated (cp the later coin-types, and Herod. 1182, Verg. a n .
4 743, Hor. Od. iii. 4 64, Paus. ix. 41 I). A large triumphal arch
with three openings, still standing, hears the inscription ‘ Patara
the metropolis of the Lycian nation’ : and there are many othe:
remains, including those of baths built by Vespasian.
For deccription, see Heaufort, Karamania, 5 j : ; Spratt and
1 Pliny5 loo, ,Patara, q u e prius Pafaros. On coins
f f t a r a z i ; cp Kalmka’s ‘ Zur historischen Topographie Lykiens,’
in Kiepert’s Festschrift, 1898, p. 1 6 1 s T h e coins begin about
440 R.C. I l i m p a is, of course, a neuter plural.
2 T h e reason for Paul’s transshipment a t Patara lay in the
fact that ‘ h e hasted, if it were possible for him, to be a t
Jerusalem the day of Pentecost’ (Acts 20 16). T h e ship in which
he had come to Patara was eithefgoing no farther, or wa5
intending to call a t the Pamphylian and Cilician ports.
8 Civitates, g u m pretemectus est, Miletus Myndus Nali-
camassus Cnidus Cous. R ~ O ~ ut
Patara.
U est Z ...
~ Jventurn navigat
3601
PATHRUSIM
Forbes, Travels, 1 3 0 J , Fellows, Lycia, 1 7 9 s 416j:, Benndorf
and Niemann, Lykia. W. J. W.
PATHEUS (rraealoc [B]), I Esd. 9~3=EzralOz3.
P ETHAHIAH , 2.
PATHROS (Dilns)is referred to in four passages :
Is. 11I (Baj3uhwvrac [BNAQ], Phethros) ; Jer. 44 I (rraeovpqs
[AI, +.zpBoupqe [Q], Phathures).
It IS usually held that Pathros ( = E g . p 3 ti’ rsii, ‘the
south land,’ Copt. plo r2s or pterer; Ass. pnturiri)
means Upper Egypt (see E GYPT , 5 43 ; G EOGRAPHY ,
§ 15 [ 6 ] ; Erman, Z A T C V 1 0 r r 8 [1890] ; Del. Par.
310; Schr. K G F 2 8 3 f : ) . Plausible as the theory is.
it must be re-examined in the light of the belief1
that prophecies as well as narratives have sometimes
been so edited as to obtain a new and very different
geographical and historical reference. That ’ Pathros ’
means ‘upper Egypt‘ in the passages as they now
stand, cannot be denied; hut it has yet to be ascertained
whether the original writer really had ‘ upper Egypt ’ in
his mind. (a) I n the first passage (Is. 1111) there is
clearly no certainty that this is the case. Now that
it has been maintained that there was probably an
Edomite captivity of the Jews (see O BADIAH [BOOK]. § 7 ) ,
and that ’ Asshur’ is not unfrequently miswritten for
‘ Geshiir,’ and ’ Babel ’ and ‘ Elam ’ for ‘ Jerahmeel,’
and also that in Gen. 1014 P ATHRUSIM [q.v.] is most
probably a distortion of S%r.rPph%thim,it becomes. to
say the least, possible that the original reading of Is.
11II was, a from Geshur and from Misrim, and from
Zarephath, and from Cush, and from Jerahmeel, and
from the Zarhites, and from the Arabians’ (cp 6 ’ s
m . ,see Crit. Bib.). (6) In
B a B u h w v i a r = ~ ~ ~ = ~ M nand
Jer. 44 I we read of ‘ all the Jews who dwelt in the land
of n,isn. who dwelt at Migdol, and at Tahpanhes, and
at Noph, and in the country of Pathros,’ and in v . 15
of ‘all the people that dwelt in the land of o’ixn, in
Pathtos.’ Beke, however, has already expressed the
view (Oi-tg. Bib. 1307) that the places referred to are
in a N. Arabian own. This appears to be correct ;
only it must be added that the names, except Migdol,
have been corrupted. Migdol ( a common Hebrew
term) is not improbably the Migdal-cusham which under-
lies the Migdal-shechem of Judg. 946 (see S HECHEM.
TOWER O F ) ; Tahpanhes and Noph have arisen out of
N APHTUHIM [ q . ~ . ]; Pathros = Zarephath. (c) Ezek.
2914 occurs in a prophecy which (like that in Jer. 46)
has not improbably been altered and expanded from a
prophecy on Misrim (Musur in N. Arabia) ; cp
P ARADISE, § I. T h e original reading must have been
very different from what now stands in MT, and very
possibly was, ‘ a n d I will cause them to return to the
land of Zarephath, to the land of Jerahmeel.‘ ( d ) In
Ezek. 30 14 the traditional text reads ’ Pathros, Zoan,
No.’ But the original reading of the second name was
probably ‘ Zoar’-Le., ‘ Missur ’ (see Z OAR ), whilst
‘No-[amon]’ seems to have come from ‘Ammon’ ( a
not uncommon corruption of Jerahmeel). and ‘ Pathros ’
from ‘ Zarephath.’ Cp P I - BESETH , TAHPANHES. T h e
student will remember that when the ancient editors
have been proved to have used much uncritical con-
jecture, it is the duty of modern critics to employ the
ordinary means of critical restoration of the original
text. 1‘. K . C.
PATHRUSIM (D’D?ng), a ‘ s o n ’ of Mizraim. Gen.
1014 ( ~ A T P O C W N I E I M [A and Aa?in I Ch.], UATPO-
CONOEIM [E], - I E I M [L]). I Ch. 1 I d ( @ A 8 € p w C € l M
[L, om. B]). If, however, we are to point n’lrp, MiSrim,
’ng will he a corruption of O~?LY:, SHrephHthim (the list
containing only S. Palestine peoples). See MIZRAIM,
5 26.
1 See Cn’t. BiX, and cp GII.PAn, M ERATHAIM , P ARADISE,
SHECHEM,
TVRE.
3602
 PATMOS
Marquart (Fund. 26) would read D’DynE) in Jer. 4696 for the
superfluous *urn. If so, it would he best to go a step farther
and read pn>yy, and suppose that a prophecy against Mi3rim
has been altered and expanded into a prophecy against
Mizraim. Cp PKOPHET, 5 45. T. K. C.
PATMOS ( H ~ ~ T M O; CRev..lg). P a t m o s , n o w
called Patino, is a b a r r e n r o c k y island, a b o u t I O m.
l o n g a n d 5 m. w i d e (Pliny, “423, Pafmos,
Site‘ circuitu trip’nta miZZia passuum), i n t h a t
section of t h e a g e a n which was called t h e I c a r i a n Sea,
b e t w e e n S a m o s a n d Cos ( S t r a b o , 488). I t w o u l d , there-
fore, b e a f e a t u r e i n the s c e n e viewed b y P a u l in his v o y a g e
f r o m S a m o s , 20 m . t o t h e N., t o Cos ( A c t s 2 0 1 5 2 1 1 ;
c p E. D. C l a r k , T r a v e l , 2 194). I t i s first m e n t i o n e d
b y T h u c y d i d e s (3 3 3 = 4 2 8 ~ . c . ) - i t s sole a p p e a r a n c e
i n a n c i e n t history, t h o u g h t h e r u i n s o f t h e Hellenic
t o w n o n t h e h e i g h t between the inlets of L a Scala (E.)
a n d Merika (W.) w o u l d p o i n t t o a c e r t a i n degree of
prosperity, of which w e h a v e o t h e r w i s e no hint. T h e
i s l a n d m u s t , i n fact, h a v e been of s o m e i m p o r t a n c e , as
its h a r b o u r is o n e of t h e safest i n a l l the G r e e k islands.
In the Middle Ages also it flourished, and from its palms was
known as Palnzosa: the degradation of the vegetation is somc-
what foolishly attributed to Turkish rule. T h e northern and
southern portions of the island are united by two isthmuses, only
a few hundred yards wide between which rises the ruin-crowned
height above mentioned.’ On the E. of the southernmost
isthmus lies the port: the town is farther S., round the
Monastery of St. John.
P a t m o s owes its celebrity i n N T history entirely to
the m e n t i o n of it i n Rev. 19. U n d e r t h e E m p i r e ,
2. Relation i s l a n d s w e r e l a r g e l y u s e d as places of
to John. banishment-e.g., Doniitian banished
F l a v i a Domitilla, s u s p e c t e d o f beinE a
C h r i s t i a n , to P o n t i a (Eus. H E iii: 18 5 ; D i o Cass.
6714).’ It h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d by s o m e writers t h a t t h e
influence of t h e n a t u r a l features of t h e view f r o m the
highest s u m m i t o f t h e i s l a n d m a y be t r a c e d in t h e
i m a g e r y of t h e A p o c a l y p s e : references to t h e sea a r e
u n u s u a l l y f r e q u e n t ( R e v . 4 6 614 131 152 1620). [ B u t
see A POCALYPSE ; a l s o J OHN (SON OF ZEBEDEE), 9.1
T h e entire s o u t h e r n section of t h e island b e l o n g s to
t h e M o n a s t e r y of St. J o h n t h e Divine ( f o u n d e d b y
St. C h r i s t o d u l o s i n 1088, o n t h e site of a n a n c i e n t
t e m p l e ) , o n t h e s u m m i t of t h e highest hill (St. Elias,
a b o u t 800 ft.). Lower d o w n is a s e c o n d m o n a s t e r y ,
PAUL
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY
T h e older view (6 I). Criticism in first half of nineteenth century
Origin and name (0 4).
A . E ARLIER f i . e . . T G B I N G E N )CRITICISM (66 a-qzl.
F(ul’s
I .
position ($ 13).
Education and inner life (5 SA). ourney to Cyprus (p 14).
Outer life ( 5 7). alue of narrative (5 IS).
Conversion and mission (S
Autobiography (8 IO).
ax). Relation to Twelve (0 16).
Peter and Paul a t Antioch (S 17).
Supplemented by Acts (8 11). Paul’s missionary labours ($0. 13-22)
Affairs at Antioch (8 12). First and Second Thessalonians ($ 23).
Ephesus, Macedonia (0 24A).
B. LATER C RITICISM
Transitional views ($ 33). Of the epistles (8 38).
A new school (B 34). Their form ($ 39).
I t s relation to ‘redaction’ and ‘interpola- Their contents : Paulinism (8 40).
tion’ hypotheses ( 5 35). Paul’s life and work (8 4rx:).
Its proposed task ( 5 36). T h e historical Paul ($3 43);
I t s view of Acts ( 5 17). T h e legendary Paul ($3 44).
Literature (8 51)
’ P a u l , an a p o s t l e of Jesus Christ, t h o u g h n o t o n e
o f t h e original twelve, b u t o n l y at a later date a d d e d
1. The older b y t h e Lord himself t o t h e circle of his
m o r e i n t i m a t e followers, soon b e c a m e o n e
view’ o f the m o s t zealous, if n o t t h e m o s t
zealous, of t h e m all. A Jew b y birth, b r o u g h t u p i n
1 Especially so used were the islands of Gyara (Cyaros) and
Seriphos in the iEgean (cp l’ac. Ann. 3 68 4 30 1671 : Juv. Sat.
1 7 3 , aude aliguid brevibus Gyaris et carcere di’um, and id.
6 563 10 170).
PAUL
that o f the Apocalypse, in which is s h o w n t h e c a v e
(dus+Xarov T ~ ’ SA a o ~ a X l i $ ~wherein
~) t h e Revelation
w a s delivered. T h e c a v e is n o w a c h a p e l : ‘ i n o n e
part of t h e roof a r e n t is p o i n t e d o u t , w h e r e t h e r o c k
w a s b r o k e n a t t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t of t h e Revelation,
a n d from a s o m e w h a t d e e p e r cleft i n this t h e Divine
voice is s a i d to h a v e p r o c e e d e d ’ ( T o z e r , The Islands
o f t h e A?gean, 178f.).
For description of Hellenic ruins, see Memoirs Relating to
Turhey, ed. Walpole, 22943J; H. F. Tozer, The Islands o/
the &Eean, 1 8 p , p. 178f: Most complete account by
V. Gukrin, in his Descrijtion de Z’fle de t’atmos et de Satnos,
1356; with map of the island. For the legends of St. John at
Patmos, see the MS of the monastery entitled Ai w c p i o h 706
QeoAd.you, composed by Prochorus dis disciple (analysed by
Gukrin, op. cit. 2of: ; it contains the composition of the Gospel
only, not the Apocalypse). W. J. W.
PATRIARCH ( ~ ~ a ~ p Hi Ca , pi.e., h e a d o f a n a ~ p l a
or family), a designation applied(in N T to Abraham (Heb. 7 4),
to the twelve sons of Jacob (Acts 7 sf:) and to David (Acts2z9).
I n 4 Macc. 7 19 mention is made of oi barptdpxar &iv ’Appmp,
I U a a K , Iarrop, and in 4 Macc. 1625 of A. r a i I. .ai I. .ai wdvsrr
0; warpidpxar. In I Ch. 2431 Qi3 dN1; nix$ (‘principal fathers’)
is represented hy rrarprdpxar A p a a p [Bl warprar Apwc [AI warprh
701 I I ~ ~ T O[UL ] ; in z Ch.198 261z’warprdpxar (ol $XOYTCC
TGY wa.rpr&v [Ll in 2 Ch. 26 12) renders ny>x;i w x i (AV ‘chief of
the fathers ’ RV ‘ head of fathers’ [houses] ’) in I Ch. 27 22 n . 1 ~
(AV ‘pringes,’ RV ‘captains,’ 02 ~ ~ X O Y T E iLl),
S in 2 Ch. 23 20
nixnn (EV ‘captains of hundreds,’ T O ~ & S ~ T O V T & ~ X W S [L]).
PATBOBAS ( n a ~ p o B a c ,abbrev. f r o m P a t r o b i u s )
is o n e of five w h o with ‘ t h e b r e t h r e n t h a t a r e w i t h
t h e m ’ are s a l u t e d in R o m . 1614. T h e y s e e m t o h a v e
been h e a d s of C h r i s t i a n households, o r p e r h a p s class
leaders of s o m e sort.
The lists of Pseudo Dorotheus and Pseudo - Hippolytus
~
represent Patrohas as bishop of Puteoli. Cp R OMANS .
The name was borne by a contemporary of Nero, a freedman ;
cp Tac. Hist. 149 2 95.
PATROCLUS ( ~ ~ T P O K A O Y[AV]). t h e f a t h e r of
NICANOR
[T.v.] ( 2 Macc. 89).
PAU (qP?; @ o r u p [ A D E L ] ) , G e n . 3639, or P A I I
(’Y? ; @ o r u p [BAI, @soya CLI). I. Ch. 150, t h e
n a m e of t h e city o f H a d a d , a k i n g o f Edom. P r o b a b l y
w e s h o u l d follow @ a n d r e a d Piy?, P5‘6r (so Ball).
See BELA, 2, HADAD( 2 ) , PEOR.
(I§1-3).
(s 2). F. C. Baur (B 3).
, IVY . I
C. M.
W.
Corinth ; Epistle to Romans (0 26).
Y.
Alms (8 27).
Journey to Jerusalem (S 28).
Account in Acts (8 29).
Doubtful epistles ( 5 30).
Later life ($3 31).
Personality (5 32).
E. n.
($9 33-50).
In ‘Acts of Paul’ (0 45).
Home of ‘ Paulinism ’ (S 46).
‘Paulinism’ characteristic ofEpistles(g 47).
History of ‘ Paulinism ’ (8 48).
Post-‘Pauline’ epistles ($3 49).
Apocryphal Epistles, Acts, etc. ($3 50).
W. C. V. M.
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e strictest p r e c e p t s of t h e l a w ,
bitterly o p p o s e d t o t h e C h r i s t i a n i t y t h e n b e g i n n i n g to
e m e r g e i n t o prominence, as a y o u t h he &as o n e of t h e
witnesses of the m a r t y r d o m of S t e p h e n ( A c t s 758-83).
A n o n , while ‘ b r e a t h i n g t h r e a t e n i n g a n d s l a u g h t e r
a g a i n s t t h e disciples of t h e L o r d ’ ( A c t s S r ) , his c a r e e r
is a r r e s t e d a n d he is converted on t h e r o a d t o D a m a s c u s
( A c t s 9 z - 8 ) . O n c e a p r e a c h e r of t h e g o s p e l , h e hence-
1 The reading is certainly false. Targ., Pesh., Vg., and
many Heb. MSS read ) y ~ .
 PAUL
forth, without hesitation or delay, devotes to its service
for all the rest of his life all his rare gifts of intellect
and heart, his unmatched courage, his immovable
fideliN finally, after long and indefatigable wander-
ings, including three great (missionary) journeys,
probably about the year 64 A . D . , while still in the full
vigour of manhood, he suffered martyrdom a t Rome.
Further details will be found in the Acts of the Apostles,
and in his 13 (14)canonical epistles. Apart from one
or two comparatively unimportant traditions, these are
out sole and abundantly sufficient sources of information.
So thought and spoke almost all scholars of a i
schools, whether Protestant or Catholic, down to t h e
beginning of the nineteenth century. All that was left
for cholarship was to determine as exactly as possible
the-Jrecise order of the events in detail and the proper
light in which to view them, so as to gain a picture as
faithful and complete as possible of the great apostle's
life and activities. That Acts and the Epistles might
be regarded, on the whole, as credible throughout, was
qusstioned by no one.
'Towards the middle of the nineteenth century the
situation was coinoletelv altered. Criticism had learned
~I
a. criticism to concern itself seriously with the
in Grst half contents of Acts, and to inquire as
of llineteenth to the genuineness of certain of the
13 (14) Pauline epistles as read in
century' the NT.
The epistle to the Hebrews had already been excluded from
the group by Carlstadt (1520) and among those who followed
him in this were Luther, Calvin, Grotius (ob. 1681), and Semler
(06. 1791). E . Evanson in 179a raised some doubts a ~ ,to the
Pauline origin of Romans, Ephesians, Colossians ;
Schmidt in 1798 as to that of I and z Thessalonians ; k i E h &
(1804).. Schleiermacher (1807), de Wette (1826) a s to Timothy
and Titus ; Usteri in 1824, a s alsode Wette and Schleiernlacher,
following Evanson, a s to Ephesians. B y ,835 F. C. von Baur
had given the coup degrace to the 'so-called Pastoral Epistles
Kern to 2 Thessalonians in 1839 ; Semler in 1776, followed h i
others, denied the unity of 2 Corinthians.
Baur, incidentally in his PustovaZbriefe (p. 79).declared
that we possess only four letters of Paul with regard
to the genuineness of which there can be no reasonable
doubttGalatians, I and 2 Corinthians, Romans. This
thesisbecame the corner-stone of the new building.
F. C. von Baur, the founder of what was called, from
the university in which he taught, the Tiibingen school,
3. Baur. laid the foundation in his Puuluus (1845;
after the author's death in 1860,by E. Zeller.
1866-1867; ET by Menzies, z vols., 1873-1875). I n
Baur's view, Acts, and also such epistles as were not
from the pen of Paul (Peter, or James) himself, ought to
be regarded as ' tendency '-writings, designed to make
peace or to establish it, as between Peter and Paul,
the assumed heads of two parties or schools in early
Christianity which were called by their names-
Petrinists and Paulinists, Jewish Christians and Gentile
Christians ; parties which he held to have lived, like
Peter and Paul themselves, and for a considerable time
after the decease of these great leaders, in bitter hostility
towards one another until, so far as they did not lose
themselves in various heresies to right or to left, they
became merged in one another in the bosom of the
Catholic church. For the historian the all-important
task now became that of discerning clearly the un-
questionably genuine element in the Pauline Epistles,
on which alone weight could be laid. With them could
be combined only those elements in Acts which were
seen not to be in contradiction with the epistles.
This standpoint, if we leave out of account divergences
of subor,dinate importance, was accepted in Germany
and Switzerland by many scholars; among others by
E. Zeller, A. Schwegler, K. R. Kostlin, K. Planck,
A. Ritschl (1849),'A. Hilgenfeld, G. Volkmar, H.
Lnng, A. Hausrath, K. Holsten, R. A. Lipsius, C.
Weizsacker, H. J. Holtzmann, 0. Pfleiderer-we may
1 In the second edition of his Entsfehung, however, Ritschl
abandoned the Tiibingen position.
3%
PAUL
safely say, in short, by the entire ' old guard' of liberal
theology-so, too, in France; in Holland also, until
quite recently, by the whole modern school; and in
England among others by W. R. Cassells, the long
anonymous author of Supernutural KeZigion (vols. I
and 2 , 1874; vol. 3, 1877), and by S. Davidson
(Zntvoductioionto the Study ofthe N T , 2 vols. ; P),1894).
T h i s also was, on the whole, the point of view
occupied by E. Hatch when he contributed to EnLy,
18 (1885),the article a Paul,' from which the
following $5 (4-32) of the present article are taken, a few
short notes only being added within square brackets.
W. C. V. M.
A . EorZier ( L e . , Tubingen) Criticism.
'Saul, who is also (called) Paul' [ZaFXos ir xal
IIaFXos, Acts1391 .- was a 'Hebrew of the Hebrews'-
4. ~ ' . e ,of pure Jewish descent unmixed
Origin and with Gentile blood-of the tribe of Ben-
name' iamin (Rom. 111 2 Cor. 1122 Phil. 35).
I n Acts it is -stated"that he was born a t Tarsus -in
Cilicia ( 9 1 1 2139 223) ; but in the fourth century
there still lingered a tradition that his birthplace was
Giscala, the last of the fortress-towns of Galilee which
held out against Rome ((Jerome, De vir. i h s t r . 1 0 0 5 ;
Ad p h i h ~ z523).l
. -d
The fact that Paul was called by two names has been
accounted for in various ways. Saul (the Aramaic
form, used only as a vocative. and in the narratives of
his conversion, Acts 9 4 17 227 13 26 r4 ; elsewhere the
Hellenised form, ZaOhos) -was a natural name for a
Benjamite to give to his son, in memory of the first of
Jewish kings ; Paul is more difficult of explanation. I t
is first found in the narrative of the conversion of
Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus (Acts 1 3 7 ) ,
and it has sometimes been supposed either that Paul
himself adopted the name in compliment to his first
Gentile convert of distinction, or that the writer of
Acts intended to imply that it was so adopted. Others
have thought that it was assumed by Paul himself after
the beginning of his ministry, and that it is derived
from the Latin pnulus in the sense either of 'least
among the apostles,' or ' little of stature.' These and
many similar conjectures, however, may probably be set
aside in favour of the supposition that there was a double
name from the first, one Aramaic or Hebrew, and the
other Latin or Greek, like Simon Peter, John Nlark,
Simeon Niger, Joseph Justus ; this supposition is con-
firmed by the fact [that in those days many people had
in Greek and Latin two or more names, of which there
are many examples in the Oxyr. Pup. i. ii. ; and] that
Paul was not a n uncommon name in Syria and the
eastern parts of Asia Minor (instances will be found in
the Index Nominum to Boeckhs Corp. Inscr. G r m .
[OxyrhynchnsPupyri,i. 98 205, Bis, ii. 93081). Whatever
be its origin, Paul is the only name used by himself, or
used of him by others when once he had entered into
the Roman world outside Palestine. Acts speaks of
his having been a Roman citizen C'Pwpaios, like Attalus
b XpruTrau6s, condemned to he thrown before the wild
animals at Lyons, Eus. HE v. 1 4 4 47 501 by birth (Acts
2228 ; cp 1 6 3 7 23z7), a statement which also has given
rise to several conjectures, because there is no clue to the
ground upon which his claim to citizenship was based.
Some modern writers question the fact, considering the
statement to be part of the general colouring which the
writer of Acts is supposed to give to his narrative ; and
some also question the fact, which is generally con-
fidered to support it, of the appeal to the emperor.
That Paul received part of his education a t Tarsus,
1 It was an Ebionite slander that he was not a Jew at all
hut a Greek [who wished to marry a Jewish priest's daughter a;
Jerusalem, for that reason became a proselyte and had himself
circumcised, but, when the girl refused to marry him, got angry
and began to write agaimt circumcision, the Sabbath, and the
whole law] (Epiphan. Hey. 30 16).
3606
 PAUL
which was a great seat of learning, is a possible in-
6. Education. ference from his use of some of the
technical terms which were current in
the Greek schools of rhetoric and philosophy; but,
since the cultivation of a correct grammatical and
rhetorical style was one of the chief studies of those
schools, Paul's imperfect command of Greek syntax
seems to show that this education did not go very far
[cp H ELLENISM , § 91. That he received the main
part of his education front Jewish sources is not only
probable from the fact that his family were Pharisees,
but certain from the whole tone and character of his
2
writings [though his language and style betray the
gen e Greek; cp W. C. van Manen, Puulus,
2186-190 3156-160; A. Deissmnnn, C G A , 1896, pp.
767-769 ; E. L. Hicks, Stfrd. 6i6L 5 (1896). pp. 1-14].
According to Acts, his teacher w.?s G AMALIEL , who, as
the grandson of Hillel, took a natural place as the head
of the moderate school of Jewish theologians ; nor, in
spite of the objection that the fanaticism of the disciple
was at variance with the moderation of the master,
does the statement seem in itself improbable. A more
important difficulty in the way of accepting the state-
ment that Jerusalem wc& the place of Paul's education is
the fact that in that case his edncation must have been
going on at th time of the preaching and death of
Jesus Christ. '&hat he had not seen Jesus Christ
during his ministry seems to be c d for a comparison
of I Cor. 9 1 with 158 appears to limit his sight of him
to that which he had at his conversion, and the
'knowing Christ after the flesh ' of z Cor. 5 16 is used
not of personal acquaintance but of ' carnal ' as opposed
to ' spiritual ' understanding ; nor does the difficulty
seem to be altogether adequately explained away by the
hypothesis which some writers have adopted, that Paul
.was temporarily absent from grusalem a t the times
'
J
when Jesus Christ was there. Like all ewish boys,
..
Paul learnt a trade, that of tent-makin@ this was a
natural employment for one of Cilician origin, since
the hair of the Cilician goat was used to make a canvas
(ciliciu) which was specially adapted for the tents used
by travellers on the great routes of commerce, or by
soldiers on their campaigns (cp Philo, De anirn. idon.
r y i. 2238 ed. Mang. ; and see CILICIA, 3, end).
,%ether he was married or not is a question which
has been disputed from very early times : the expressions
in I Cor. 78 95 were taken by Tertullian to imply that
he was not, and by Clement of Alexanaria and Origen
to imply that he had once been, but had become a
widower.
' F h e beginning of Paul's active life was doubtless like
its maturity ; it was charged with emotion. He himself
6. Inner life. gives a graphic sketch of its inner history.
His conversion to Christianity was not
the first great change that he had undergotie,,! ' I was
alive without the law once' (Rom. 79). H e had lived
in his youth a pure and guileless life. He had felt t a t
which is at once the charm and the force of such a life,
the unco~~sciousness of wrong. But, while his fellow-
disciples in the rabbinical schools had been content to
dissect the text of the sacred code with a minute
anatomy, the vision of a law of God which transcended
both text and comment had loomed upon him like
a new revelation. With the sense of law had come
the sense of sin. It was like the first dawn of con-
science. He awoke as from a dream. The comniand-
ment came.' It was intended to be ' unto life,' but he
found it to be 'unto death' : for it opened up to him
infinite possibilities of sinning : ' I had not known lust
except the law had said, Thou shalt not lust.' T h e
possibilities of sinning became lures which drew him on
to forbidden and hated ground : ' sin, finding occasion
through t h e commandment, beguiled me and through
it slew m e ' (Rom. 77-11). This was his inner life, and
no man has ever analysed it with a more penetrating
and graphic power.
3607
PAUL
In his outward life this sense of the law of God
to Paul an overpowering stimulus.
.became
, life. stronger the consciousness of his
The
personal failure, the greater the im-
pulse of his zeal. The vindication of the honour of
God by persecuting heretics, which was an obligation
upon all pious Jews, was for him a supreme duty. H e
became not only a persecutor but a leader among
persecutors (Gal. 114).
What Paul felt was a very frenzy of hate. he 'breathed
threatening and slaughter,' like the snorting 'of a war-horse
hefore a battle, against the renegade Jews who believed in a
false Messiah (Acts9 I 2611). H i s enthusiasm had been known
before the popular outbreak which led to Stephen's death, for
the witnesses to the martyr's stoning 'laid down their clothes'
at his feet (Acts 7 58), and he took a prominent place in the
ersecution which followed. H e himself speaks of having
'made havoc' of the community at Jerusalem spoiling it like
a captured city (Gal. 1 13 23) ; in the more d e t h e d account of
Acts he went from house to house to search out and drag forth
to punishment the adherents of the new heresy (8 3). When his
victims came before the Jewish courts he tried, probably by
scourging, to force them to apostatise (ZG 11) ; in some cases he
voted for their death (22 4 26 IO).
T h e persecution spread from Jerusalem to J u d z a ,
Samaria, and Galilee ( 9 3 1 ) ; but Paul, with the same
spirit of enterprise which afterwards showed itself in his
niissionar journeys, was not content with the limits of
Pa1estine.g He sought and obtained from the synagogue
authoritid a t Jerusalem letters similar to those which,
in the thirteenth century, the popes gave to the militia
Jesu Christi contra hzereticos. ' The ordinary juris-
diction of the synagogues was for the time set aside;
the special commissioner was empowered to take a s
prisoners to Jerusalem any whom he found to belong
to ' T h e Way.' Of the great cities which lay near
Palestine, Damascus was the most promising, if not
the only field for such a commission. At Antioch and
a t Alexandria, though the Jews, of whom there were
very many, enjoyed a large amount of independence
and had their own governor, the Roman authorities
would probably have interfered to prevent the extreme
measures which Pan1 demanded. At Damascus, where
also the Jews were many and possibly had their own
civil governor ( z Cor. 1132), the Arabian prince Aretas
(HHritha), who then held the city, might naturally be
disposed to let an influential section of the population
d,+& they pleased with their refractory members.
' On Paul's way to Damascus occurred an event which
has moved to be of transcendent imoortance for the
8. Conversion. religious history of mankind. He
became a Christian bv what he believed
to be the personal revelation of Jes& Christ.;, Paul's
own accounts of the event are brief; bu&they are at
the same time emphatic and uniform.
.
' It pleased God . . to reveal his Son in me ' (Gal. 1 16) ;
'have I not seen Jesus our Lord ' (r Cor. 9 I ) ; ' last of all h e
was seen of me also a s of one born out of due time' ( I Cor. 15 8,
where $;bq' rdpoi must be read in the sense of the parallel
expressions 649 K ~ < etc.; , in other words, Paul puts the
appearance to himself on a level with the appearances to the
apostles after the resurrection). These accounts give no details
of the circumstances. Paul's estimate of the importance of such
details was probably different from that which has been attached
to them in later times.
T h e accounts in Acts are more elaborate ; they are
three, one in the continuous narrative (93-19),a second
in the address on the temple stairs (226-ZI),a third in
the speech to Agrippa (2612-18); they all differ in
details, they all agree in substance ; the differences are
fatal to the stricter theories of verbal inspiration, but
they do not constitute a valid argumeut against the
ral truth of the narrative.
"e"It is natural to find that the accounts of an event
which lies so far outside the ordinary experience of men
have been the object of much hostile criticism. j T h e
earliest denial of its reality is found in theTudapo-
Christian writings known as the CZemcntine HurniZies.
where Simon Magus is told that visions and dreams
may come from demons as well as from God (Cbm.
Horn. 17 13-19). T h e most important of later denials
3608
 PAUL
are those of the Tiibingen school, which explain the
narratives in Acts either as a translation into the
language of historical fact of the figurative expressions
of the manifestation of Christ to the soul, and the
consequent change from spiritual darkness to light (e.g.,
Baur, P a d , E T 1 7 6 ; Zeller, Acts. E T 1289), or as an
ecstatic vision ( H o l s t F , Zum Evangelium a!. Paulus u.
d. Pdrus, 3-114). But against all the difficulties and
apparent incredibilities of the narratives there stand out
the clear and indisputable facts that the persecutor was
suddenly transformed into a believer, and that to his
dying day he never ceased to believe and to preach that
he had ' seen Jesus.
'Nor was it only s a t Paul had seen Jesus ; the gospel
which he preached, as well as the call ,to preach it, was
'' due to this revelationd,It had ' pleased
God to reveal his S n in him' that he
'might preach him among the Gentiles' (Gal. 112 15J).
H e had received the special mark of God's favour,
which consisted in his apostleship, that all nations
might obey and believe the gospel (Rom. 15, cp 123
151jJ). H e had been entrusted with a secret
(puurfiprov) which had 'been kept in silence through
times eternal,' but which it was now his special office
to make known (Rom. 1125 16251: ; and even more
prominently in the later epistles, Eph. 1 9 3 2-9 6 19 Col.
1z6f. 43). This secret was that ' t h e Gentiles are
fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and
fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through
the gospy!- This is the key to all Paul's subsequent
history. H e was the 'apostle of the Gentiles,' and
that not from men, neither through m a n ' (Gal. 11);
and so thoroughly was the conviction of his special
mission wrought into the fibres of his nature, that it is
difficult to give full credence to statements which appear
" to be at variance with i t '
Of his life i m m e d e l y after his conversion Paul
himself gives a clear account: ' I conferred not with
lo. Buto- flesh and blood. neither went I up to
biography. Jerusalem to them which were apostles
before me ; but I went away into Arabia ' I
(Gal. 116J). The reason of his retirement, to wha?
ever place it may have been (see A RABIA , 0 4 ) , is not
far to seek. A great mental, no less than a great bodily,
convulsion naturally calls for a period of rest : and the
consequences of his new position had to be drawn out
and realised before he could prope enter upon the
r""
mission-work which lay before him. From ' Arabia ' he
returned to Damascus !(Gal. 1IT), and there began not
only his preaching of &e gospel but also the long series
of ' perils from his own countrymen,' which constitute
so large a part of the circumstances of his subsequent
history (Xcts 923-25 z Cor. 1 1 2 6 3 z J ) .
It was not until 'after three years,' though it is un-
certain whether the reckoning begins from his conversion
or from his return to Damascus, that he went u p to
Jerusalem ; his purpose in going was to become ac-
quainted with .Peter, and he stayed with him fifteen days
(Gal. 118). Of his life at Jerusalem on this occasion
there appear to have been erroneous accounts current
even in Paul's own lifetime, for he adds the emphatic
attestation, as of a witness on his oath, that the account
which he gives is true (Gal. 1 2 0 ) . The point on which
h e seems to lay emphasis is that, in pursuance of his
policy not to confer with flesh and blood,' he saw none
of the apostles except Peter and James, and that even
some years afterwards he was still unknown by face to
the churches of J u d z a which were in Christ.2]
1 To Hauran (Renan), to the Sinaitic peninzi; (Holsten).
[Fries ( Z N T W , 1901,150J) thinks that what Paul wrote was
'ApaSa, and that the place intended was the zqy of the Talmud,
the'Apaj3a of Josephus(Neubauer, GOT.z o 4 f . Jos. Vil. 51).
Fries points out that the Great Rabbi JohaAan b. Zakkai
taught for several years at this Araba ; and that according to
one tradition Paul himself was a Galilean, horn at Gischala.]
2 A different account of this visit to Jerusalem is given in
Acts 9 26-30 26 20 ; the account of the trance in the temple, Acts
22 17.21, is in entire harmony with Paul's own words.
3%
From Jerusalem Paul went ' into the regions of Syria
and Cilicia,' preaching the gospel (Gal. 1 2 1 23). How
ll. Supple- much that brief expression covers is un-
certain ; it may refer only to the first few
m e i g . b y months after his departure from Jeru-
salem, or it may be a summary of many
travels, of which that which is commonly known as his
' first missionary journey ' is a type. ..-The form of ex-
pression in Gal. 2 I makes I t probable that he purposely
leaves an interval between the events which immediately
succeeded his conversion and the conference at Jerusalem.
For this interval, assuming it to exist, or in any case
for the detail of its history, we have to depend on the
accounts in Acts 1120-30 1225-1428. These accounts
possibly cover only a small part of the whole period,
and they are so limited to Paul's relations with Barnabas
as to make it probable that they were derived from a
lost 'Acts of Barnabas.' This supposition would prob-
ably account for the fact that in them the conversion
? g e Gentiles is to a great extent in the background.
T h e chief features of these accounts are (i.) the for-
mation of a new centre of Christian life at Antioch
(I IZ), and (ii.) a journey which Paul, Barnabas, and
for part of the way John Mark took through Cyprus
and_&ia Minor (114)J
The first of t h 6 e facts has a significance which
has sometimes been overlooked for the history not only
12. Affairs of Paul himself but also of Christianity in
It is that the mingling together,
~~ antioch. general.
in that splendid capital of the civilised
East, of Jews and Syrians on the one hand, and Greeks
and Romans on the other, furnished the conditions
which made a Gentile Christianity possible. The re-
ligion of Jesus Christ emerged from its obscurit) into
the full glare of contemporary l i k e Its adherents
attracted enough attention to receive in the common
talk and intercourse of men a distinctive name. They
were treated, not as a Jewish sect, but as a political
party. T o the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew
'Messiah.' which was probably considered to be not
a title but a proper name, was added the termination
which had been employed for the followers of Sulla, of
Pompey, and of Cresar [see C HRISTIAN , § 41. I t is
improbable that this would have been the case unless
the Christian community at Antioch had had a large
Gentile element; and it is an even more certain and
more important fact that in this first great mixed com-
munity the first and greatest of all the problems of
early Christian communities had been solved, and Jews
and.Gentiles lived a common life (Gal. 212).
What place Paul himself had in the formation of
this community can only be conjectured. In Acts he
is less prominent than Barnabas ; and al-
13. though it must be gathered from the Epistle
position. to the Galatians that he took a leading part
in the controversies which arose, it is to be noted that
he never elsewhere mentions Antioch in his epistles,
and that he never visited it except casually in his trave1s.J
It may he supposed that from an early pepid he sough't
and fonnd a wider field for his activity. T h e spirit of
the Pharisees who 'compassed sea and land to make
one proselyte' was still strong within him. T h e zeal
for God which had made him a persecutor had changed
its direction but not its force. His conversion was but
a n overpowering call to a new sphere of work. It is
consequmtly difficult to believe that he was content to
take his place as merely one of a band of teachers
elected by the community or appointed by the Twelve.
The sense of a special mission never passed away from
him. ' Necessity was laid upon him ' ( I Cor. 9 16).
Inferior to the Twelve in regard to the fact that he
had once ' persecuted the church of God,' he was a not
a whit behind the very chiefest apostles' ( z Cor. 115)
in regard to both the reality and the privileges of his
commission, and to the truth of what he preached
(I Cor. 9 1-6 z Cor. 3 1-9 Gal. 112). It is also difficult
3610
 PAUL
to believe that he went out with Barnabas simply as
the delegate of the Antiochean community ; whatever
significance the laying on of hands may have had for
him (Acts 133), it would he contrary to the tenor of all
his writings to suppose that he regarded it as giving
him his commission to preach the gospel.
ii. The narrative of the incidents of the single journey
which is recorded in detail, and which possibly did not
14. Journey o,ccupy more than one summer, has given
to rise to much controversy. Its general
credibility is supported by the probability
that in the first instance Pauiwould foilow an ordinary
comniercial route, on which Jewish missionaries as well
as Jewish merchants had been his pioneers. For his
letters to his Gentile converts all presuppose their ac-
quaintance with the elements of Judaism. They do
not prove monotheism ; they assume it.
According to the narrative Paul and his companions went
first to Cyprus, the native country of Barnabas, and travelled
through the island from its eastern port, Salamis, to its capital,
Papbos. At Paphos a Jewish sorcerer, Bar-jesus, was struck
with blindness, and the proconsul Sergius Paulus, was con-
verted. From Cyprus, still followiAg a common route of trade,
they went into the SE. districts of Asia Minor through Pam-
h lia to Antioch in Pisidia. At Antioch on’ two successive
gacbaths, Paul spoke in the synagogue ; th; genuineness of the
addresses which are recorded in Acts has been disputed, chiefly
because the second of them seems to imply that he ‘turned to
the Gentiles’ (Acts 1346), not as a primary and unconditional
obligation, but owing to the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews
[cp ACTS, $ 41. Xxpelled from Antioch, they went on to
Iconium (where the apocryphal ‘Acts of Paul and Thecla’ place
the scene of that improbable hut not ungraceful romance), and
thence to Lystra, where the healing of a cripple caused the
simple and superstitious Lycaonians to take them for gods.
Their farthest point was the neighbouring town of Derbe,whence
they returned by the route by which they had come to the
sea-coast, and thence to Antioch in Syria
Although the general features of the narrative may
be accepted as true, especially
. . if, as suggested
__ above
15. Value of ( 5 11), its basis is a memoir or itinerary
narrative. not of Paul but of Barnabas, it must
be conceded that this portion of Acts
has large omissions. I t is difficult tobelieve that the
pasiiOnzte-zmYuf a n apostle who was urged by the
stimulus of a special call of Jesus Christ was satisfied,
for the long period of at least eleven years. with one
short missionary journey, and that, with the exception
of a brief visit to Jerusalem (Acts 1130). he remained
quietly at Tarsus or at Antioch ( 1 1 2 5 131 1428). In
this period must fall at least a portion of the experiences
which are recorded in 2 Cor. 1123-27, for which no place
can be found in the interval between the conference at
Jerusalem and the writing of that epistle. T h e scourg-
ing in the synagogues, the beating with the lictors’ rods
in the Roman courts, the shipwrecks, the ‘night and
day in the deep,’ the perils of robbers’ and ‘ perils
in the wilderness,’ belong no doubt to some of the un-
recorded journeys of these first years of Paul’s apostolic
life. A more important omission is that of some of the
more distinctive features of his preaching. It is im-
possible to account for his attitude towards the original
apostles in his interview with them at Jerusalem (Gal.
2 1-10) except on the supposition that before that inter-
view, no less than after it, he was that which he had
been specially called to be, the a apostle of the Gentiles ’
y e preacher of the ’ gospel of the uncircumcision.’
At the end of fourteen years, either from his con-
eersion or from his visit to Peter at Jerusalem [see
C HRONOLOGY, § 731, thequestion ofthe
16, Paul,s
relation to the relation of the communities which he
had formed, and of the gospel which
he preached, to the original Christian
communities, and to the gospel of the Twelve, came to
a crisis. His position was unique. H e owed neither
his knowledge of the gospel nor his commission to preach
it to any human authorit j(Ga1.1111 f.). As Jesus
Christ had taught and senAorth the Twelve, so had he
taught and sent forth ea? Paul was on equal terms
with the TwelvcJmntil a revelation came to him he
3611
PAUL
was apparently at no pains to co-operate with them.
Between their respective dfsciples, on the other hand,
there was evidently a sharp contention. The Jewish
party, the original disciples and first converts, main-
tained the continued obligation of the Mosaic law and
the limitation of the promises to those who observed it ;
the Pauline party asserted the abrogation of the law and
the free justification of all who believed in Jesus Christ.
The controversy narrowed itself to the one point of
circumcision. If the Gentiles were, without circum-
cision, members of the kingdom of God, why was the
law obligatory on the Jews? If, on the other hand, the
Gentiles had to be circumcised, the gospel had but a
secondary importance. It seemed for a time as though
Christianity would b broken up into two sharply-
divided sects, and that between the Jewish Christianity,
with its seat at Jerusalem, which insisted on circum-
cision, and the Gentile Christianity, with its seat at
Antioch, which rejected circumcision. there would be an
irreconcilable antagonism. It was consequently by
revelation’ (Gal.22) that Paul and Barnabas, with the
Gentile convert Titus as their ‘ minister’ or secretary,
went to confer with the lenders among the original
disciples, the ‘ pillars’ or ‘ them who were of repute,’
o James, and Cephas, and John.’
Paul put the question to them : Was it possible that he was
spending or had spent his labour in vain 1 l$j.ruc .. .EGpapov
in Gal. 2 2 form a direct question depending on dvrB&q,v). H e
laid before them the ‘gospel of the uncircumcision. They
made no addition to it (Paul says of himself LvrO+vv, and of
‘them who were of repute’ n;Gv rrpouavi!3ev.m, Gal. 2 2 6), but
accepted it as Paul preached it, recognising-it as being a
special work of God, and as being on the same level of authority
with their own (Gal. 2 7-9). T h e opposition was no doubt
strong ; there were ‘false brethren ’ who refused to emancipate
the Gentile world from the bondage of the law ; and there was
also apparently a party of compromise which, admitting Paul’s
general contention maintained the necessity of circumcision in
certain cases, of which the case of Titus, for reasons which are
no longef apparent, was typical. But Paul would have no
compromise. From his point of view compromise was impos-
sible. ‘ Justificarion’ was either ‘of faith’ or ‘ b y the works of
the law’ ; it was inconceivable that it could be partly by the one
and partly by the other.
Paul succeeded in maintaining his position at all
points. H e received ‘ the right hand of fellowship,’ and
went back to Antioch the recognised head and preacher
of the ’gospe! of the uncirciitncision.’ Within his own
sphere he had perfect freedom of action ; the only tie
between his converts and the original community at
Jerusalem was the tie of benevolence. Jew and Gentiie
were so far ’one body in Christ’ that the wealthier
cpentlle communities should remember the poor.’
When Paul returned to Antioch, Peter followed him,
and for a time the two apostles lived in harmony.
17. Peter Peter ’ did eat with the Gentiles.’ H e
at shared the common table at which the
and Jewish distinctions of meats were disre-
Antioch. garded. H e thereby accepted Paul’s
position. When, however, ‘ certain came from James ’
he drew back [ @ o ~ o b f i c ~ v o 703s
s &K m p i r o f i + , Gal. 2 12.
Barnabas and the whole of the Jewish party at Antioch
followed him]. Paul showed that the position of Peter
was illogical, and that he was self-convicted ( K ~ T E Y Y W U -
phvos $v, Gal. 211).
Paul’s argument was that the freedom from the law was
1 Few passages of the N T have been more keenly debated
during the second part of the nineteenth century [cp C OUNCIL ]
than the accounts of t h h conference at Jerusalem in Acts 15 4-29
and Gal. 2 x-m. Almost all writers agree in thinking that the
two accounts refer to the same event ; but no two writers pre-
cisely agree a s to the extent to which they can be reconciled.
The main points of difficulty in the two accounts are these :-(r)
Acts says that Paul went up by ap ointment of:he brethren a t
Antioch; Paul himself says that f e went u p hy revelation.
(2) In Acts Paul has a subordinate position ; in his own account
he treats with ‘ the three’ on equal terms. (3) In Acts Peter and
James are on Paul‘s side from the first ; in Galatians they are so
only at the end of the conference, and after a discussion. ( 4 )
Acts makes the conference result in a decree, in which certain
observances are imposed upon the Gentiles ; Paul himself ex.
pressly declares [ha; the only injunction was that they should
remember the poor.
3612
 I

42

35

7
-- -
..- - "I

Walker& Cockerells
 PAUL
complete and that to attach merit to obedience to the law wa5
to make disobedience to t h e law a sin, and, by causing those who
sought to be justified by fa;ith alone to be transgresors, to make
Christ a 'minister of sin. Obedience to any part of the law
involved recognition of the whole of it as obligatory (Gal. 53),
and consequently 'made void t h e grace of God.
The schism in the community at Antioch was p r o b
ably never healed. It is not probable that Paul's
contention was there victorious ; for, whilst Paul never
again speaks of that city, Peter seems to have remained
there [?I, and he was looked upon in later times as the
founder of its church. ' proselyte, named Lydia (see LYDIA)
/?his failure Z-Pn\ioch served Panl as the occasion
for carrying out a bolder conception. The horizon of
his mission widened before him. T h e
18. 'fnlness of the Gentiles' had to be
brought in. His diocese was no longer
labours. Antioch ; it was the whole of the Roman
e m p i r g The years that followed were almost wholly
spent among its great cities, 'preaching among the
Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ ' (Eph. 38).
Paul became the spiritual father of many communities,
and he watched over them with a father's constant care.
H e gathered round him a company of faithful disciples,
sharers in his missionary work, whom he sent sometimes
to break new ground, sometimes to arrange disputes,
sometimes to gather contributions, sometimes to
examine and report. Of his travels, whether with
them or alone, no complete record has been preserved ;
some of them are minutely described in Acts, others
within the sa
his epistles. r""' nod are known only or chiefly from
.
In giving an account of them it is
necessary to change to some extent the historical per-
spective which is presented in Acts ; for, in working u p
fragments of itineraries of Paul's companions into a
consecutive narrative, many things are made to come
into the foreground which Paul himself would probably
have disregarded. and many things are omitted or
thrown into the shade to which, from his letters, he
rs to have attached a primary importance.'
first scene of Paul's new activity, if indeed it be
allowable to consider the conference at Terusalem and
19, In Galatia. the subsequent dispute at Antioch as
--
having given occasion for a new de-
parture, was probably eastern Asia Minor, more
particularly Galatia. Some of it he had visited before ;
and from the fact that the Galatians, though they had
been heathens (Gal. 48). were evidently acquainted with
the law, it may be inferred that Paul still went on the
track of Jewish missionaries, and that here, as else-
where, Judaism had prepared the way for Christianity
[though it was resolved that .bshould go to the
Gentiles only, Gal. 116 22 8 91. ' Of his preaching Paul
himself gives a brief summary ; it was the vivid setting
forth before their eyes of Jesus as the crucified Messiah.
and it was confirmed by evident signs of the working of
the Spirit (Gal. 51 5). The new converts received it
with enthusiasm Paul felt for them as a father ; and an
illness (some-haie thought, from the form of expression
in Gal. 415, that it was a n acute ophthalmia) which
came upon him (on the assumption that this was his
first visit) intensified their mutual affection. What we
learn specially of the Galatians is probably true also of
the other Gentiles who received him ; some of them were
baptized (Gal. 327), they were formed into communities
(Gal. Iz), and they were so far organised as to have a
distinction between teachers and taught (Gal. 66).
An imperative call summoned Paul to Europe. T h e
western part of Asia Minor, in which afterwards were
20. In Macedonia. formed the important churches of
Ephesus, Coloss~%Hierapolis. and
Laodicea, was for the present left alone. Paul passed
1 The most important instance of this is probably the almost
entire omission of a n account of his relations with the community
at Corinth ; one of his visits is entirely omitted, another is also
omitted, though it may he inferred from the general expression
'he came into Greece ' (20 2) ; and of the disputes in the com-
munity, and Paul's relations to them, there is not a single word.
3.513
PAUL
on into Macedonia. T h e change was more than a
pashge from Asia to Europe. Hitherto, if Antioch
be excepted, he had preached only in small provincial
towns. Henceforward he preached chiefly, and a t last
exclusively, in the great centres of population. H e be-
gan with Philippi, which was at once a great military
post and the wealthy entrepBt of the gold and silver
mines of the neighbouring Mount Pangxus. The testi-
mony of the eyewitness whose account is incorporated
in Acts 16 12-18tells us that his first convert was a Jewish
; and Panl himself
mentions other women converts (Phil. 42). About the
community which soon grpw up there is the special
interest that it was organised after the manner of the
guilds, of which there were many both at Philippi and
in other towns of Macedonia, and that its administrative
officers were entitled, probably from the analogy of those
guilds, 'bishops' and ' deacons.' [Cp MINISI'KY, § 57.1
I n Europe, as in Asia, persecution attended him. H e
was ' shamefully entreated ' at Philippi ( I Thess. 22).
and according to Acts the ill-treatment came not from
the Jews but from the Gentile employers of a frenzied
prophetess, who saw in Paul's preaching an element of
danger to their craft. Consequently he left Philippi,
and passing over Xmphipolis, the political capital of the
province, but the seat rather of the official classes than
of trade, he went on to the great seaport and comnlercial
city of 'Thessalonica. His converts there seem to have
been chiefly among the Gentile workmen ( I Thess. 411
z Thess. 3 IO-,,), and he himself became one of them.
Knowing as he did the scanty wages of their toil, he
' worked night and day that he might not burden any of
them' (I Thess. 29 z Thess. 38). For all his working,
however, he does not seem to have earned enough to
support his little company; he was constrained both
once and again to accept help from Philippi (Phil. 416).
H e was determined that, whatever he might have to
endure, no sordid thought should enter into his relations
with the Thessalonians ; he would be to them only what
a father is to his children, behaving himself ' holily and
righteously and unblanieably,' and exhorting them to
walk worthily of God who had called them ( I Thess.
2 IO-I,). 'There, as elsewhere, his preaching was ' in
much conflict.' The Jews were actively hostile. Ac-
cording to the account in Acts (175-g), they a t last
hounded on the lazzaroni of the city, who were doubt-
less moved as easily as a hloslem crowd in modern
times by any cry of treason or infidelity, to attack the
house of Jason (possibly one of Paul's kinsmen, Rom.
1621),either because Pan1 himself was lodging there,
or because it was the meeting-place of the community.
Paul and Silas were not there, and so escaped ; but it
was thought prudent that they should go a t once and
secretly to the neighbouring small town of Bercea.
Thither, however, the fanatical Jews of Thessalonica
pursued them ; and Paul, leaving his companions Silas
and Timothy at Beroea, gave u p his preaching in
Macedonia for a time and went southwards to Athens.
The narrative which Acts gives of Paul's stay at Athens
is one of the most striking, and a t the same time one of
21. Bt athens. the most difficult, episodes in the hook.
What is the meaning of the inscription
on the altar? [see U N K N O WN GOD]. What is the
Areopagus? How far does the reported speech give
Paul's act-a1 words? What did the Athenians under-
stand by the Resurrection? These are examples of
questions on which it is easy to argue, but which,
with our present knowledge, it is impossible to decide.
One point seems to be clear, both from the absence
of any further mention of the city in Paul's writings,
and from the absence of any permanent results of his
visit : his visit was a comparative failure. It was
almost inevitable that it should be so. Athens was the
educational centre of Greece. It was a great university
city. For its students and professors the Christianity
which Paul preached had only a n intellectual interest.
 PAUL
They were not conscious of the need, which Christianity
presupposes, of a great moral reformation ; nor indeed
was it until many years afterwards, when Christianity
had added to itself certain philosophical elements and
become not only a religion but also a theology, that the
educated Greek mind, whether at Athens or elsewhere,
took serious hold of it.
Of Paul’s own inner life at Athens we learn, not from
Acts, but from one of his epistles. His thoughts were
not with the philosophers but with the communities of
Macedonia and the converts among whom he had
preached with such different success. He cared far
less for the world of mocking critics and procrastinating
idlers in the chief seat of culture than he did for the
enthusiastic artisans of Thessalonica, to whom it was a
burning question of dispute how soon the Second Advent
would be, and what would be the relation of the living
members of the church to those who had fallen asleep.
P a i l would fain have gone back to them ; but ’ Satan
hindered him ‘ ( I Thess. 2 1 7 f : ) ; and he sent Timothy
in his stead ‘ to comfort them as concerning their faith,’
and to prevent their relapsing, as probably other converts
did, under the pressure of persecution (I Thess. 3 2 s ) .
From Athens Paul went to Corinth, the capital of the
Roman urovince of Achaia. and the real centre of the
22. At Corinth. busy life of Greece. It was not the
ancient Greek citv with Greek inhabit-
ants, but a new city which had grown up in Roman
times, with a vast population of mingled races, who had
added to the traditional worship of Aphrodite the still
more sensuous cults of the East. Never before had
Paul had so vast or so promising a field for his preach-
ing ; for alike the filthy sensuality of its wealthy classes
and the intense wretchedness of its half-million of paupers
and slaves (T+V &%hvpiav TDV #K&C ?rXowaiwv Kal TDV
HTEY~~TW hYB h 1 6 ~ ~ Alciphr.
a, 360) were prepared ground
upon which his preaching could sow the seed, in the
one case of moral reaction, and in the other of hope.
At first the greatness of his task appalled him : ‘ I was
with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much
trembling ‘ ( I Cor. 2 3). H e laid down for himself from
the first, however, the fixed principle that he would
preach nothing but ‘Jesus Christ, and him crucified’
( I Cor. 2 2 ) , compromisingwith iieither the Jews, to whom
the word of the cross ’-i. e . , the doctrine of a crucified
Messiah-was ‘ a stumbling-block,‘ nor with the Gentile
philosophers, to whom it was ‘ foolishness ’ ( I Cor.
1 1 8 23). It is probable that there were other preachers
of the gospel at Corinth, especially among the Jews,
since soon afterwards there was a Judaising party;
Paul‘s own converts seem to have been chiefly among
the Gentiles ( I Cor. 122). Some of them apparently
belonged to the luxurious classes ( I Cor. 6 I,), a few of
them to the influential and literary classes ( I Cor. 1 2 6 ) ;
but the majority were from the lowest classes, the
‘foolish,’ the ‘weak,’ the ‘ base,’ and the ‘ despised’
( I Cor. 127s). Among the poor Paul lived a poor
man’s life. It was his special ‘glorying’ ( I Cor. 915
z Cor. 11IO) that he would not be burdensome to any
of them ( I Cor. 9 12 z Cor. l l g 12 13) : he worked a t his
trade of tent-making. It was a hard sad life ; his trade
was precarious, and did not suffice for even his scanty
needs ( z Cor. 119). Beneath the enthusiasm of the
preacher was the physical distress of hunger and cold and
ill-usage ( I Cor. 4 1 1 ) . In ‘ all his distress and affliction,’
however, he was comforted by the good news which
Timothy brought him of the steadfastness of the Thes-
salonian converts ; the sense of depression which pre-
ceded it is indicated by the graphic phrase, ‘ N o w we
live, if ye stand fast in the Lord ’ (I Thess. 36- 8). With
Timothy came Silas, both of them bringing help for his
material needs from the communities of Macedonia
(z Cor. 119 Acts 18 5 ; perhaps only from Philippi,
Phil. 415), and it was apparently after their coming that
the active preaching ( z Cor. 119) which roused the Jews
to a more open hostility began.
3615
PAUL
Of that hostility an interesting incident is recorded in
Acts 1812-16; but a more important fact in Paul’s life
a3. First and was
Theas.
the sending of a letter, the earliest
of all his letters which have come down
to us. to the communitv which he had
2~ ~
founded at Thessalonica. . Its genuineness, though per-
haps not beyond dispute, is almost certain. Part of it
is a renewed exhortation to steadfastness in face of
persecutions, to purity of life, and to brotherly love;
part of it is apparently a n answer to a question which
had arisen among the converts when some of their
number had died before the Parousia ; and part of it is
a general summary of their duties as members of a
Christian community. I t was probably followed.
some months afterwards, by a second letter ; but the
genuineness of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
has been much disputed. It proceeds upon the same
general lines as. the first, but appears to correct the
misapprehensions which the first had caused as to the
nearness of the Parousia.
After having lived probably about two years at Corinth
Paul resolved, for reasons to which he himself - gives no
24. at Ephesus. clue, to change the centre of his
activity from Corinth to Ephesus.
Like Corinth Ephesus w& a great commercial city with a
vast mixed pophation ; it afforded a similar field for preaching,
and it probably gave him increased facilities for communicating
with the communities to which he was a spiritual father. I t is
clear from his epistles that his activity a t Ephesus was on a
much larger scale than the Acts of the Apostles indicates.
Probably the author of the memoirs from which this part of the
narrative in Acts was compiled was not a t this time with him ;
consequently there remain only fragmentary and for the most
part unimportant anecdotes.
Paul’s real life at this time is vividly pictured in the
Epistles to the Corinthians. It was a life of hardship
and danger and anxiety.
‘ Even unto this resent hour we both hunger, and thirst, and
are naked, and aretuffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place;
and we toil working with our own hands; being reviled, we
bless ; being) persecuted, we endure ;being defamed, we entreat ;
we are madeas the filth of the world, the ofscouring of all things,
even until now’ (I Cor. 4 11-13). I t was almost more than he
could b e a r : ‘ W e were weighed down exceedingly, beyond our
power insomuch that we despaired even of life’ (2 Cor. 18). He
went Lhout like one condemned to die, upon whom the sentence
might a t any moment be carried out ( z Cor. 19). Once, a t least,
it seemed a s though the end had actually come, for he had to
fight with beasts in the arena (I Cor. 15 32); and once, if not on
the same occasion, he was only saved by Prisca and Aquila, ‘who
for his life laid down their own necks’(Rom. 164).
* What filled a larger place in Paul’s thoughts than the
’ perils ’ of either the past or the present was the ‘ care
of all the churches.’ H e was the centre round which a
system of communities revolved ; and partly by letters,
partly by sending his companions, and partly by personal
visits, he kept himself informed of their varied concerns,
and endeavoured to give a direction to their life.
Paul probably went from Ephesus to the churches of
Galatia and others in Asia Minor. He wrote the
25. Leaves Epistle to the Galatians and the first to
Ephesua. ;he Corinthians. About the particulars,
owever. of his relations with these com-
munities at this time there are differences of opinion.
Seldom do we find more than two of the better known
authors agreeing on any view.
An kmrute which occurred a t Ephesus was, according ,to
Acts, the occasion if not the cause of his leaving that city ; a
great door and effectual had been opened for him’ there ( I Cor.
16 ), and the growth of the new religion had caused an appreci-
a h i diminution in the trade of those who profited by the zeal of
the worshippers a t the temple (Acts 19 23 ty 20 I). Paul went
overland to Troas where as a t Ephesus a door was opened
unto him in the Ldrd’ ( z t o r . 2 12); but the thought of Corinth
was stronger than the wish to make a new community. H e was
eager to meet Titus, and to hear of the effect of his (now lost)
letter ; and he went on into Macedonia. I t is a t this point of
his life more than a t any other that he reveals to us hls inner
history. At Ephesus he had been hunted almost to death ; he
had carried his life in his hand ; and ‘even when we were come
into Macedonia, our flesh had no ielief, but w~ were afflicted
on every side; without were fightings, withrn were fears
(2 Cor. 7 j)
. But though the ‘outward man was decaying, the
inward man was renewed day by day ; and the climax of
splendid paradoxes which he wrote soon afterwards to the
3616
 PAUL
Corinthians (2 Cor. F 3-10) was not a rhetorical ideal, but the
story of his actual life. After a time Titus came with news
which gladdened Paul's heart ( a Cor. 7 7). He had been well
received at Corinth. The letter had made a deep impression.
The admonitions had been listened to. The Corinthians had
repented of their conduct. They had rid themselves of 'him
that did the wrong,' and Paul was 'of good courage concerning
them' (2 Cor. 18-16). He then wrote the second of his extant
letters to them, which was sent by Titus and the unknown
' brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the
churches,' and who had been elected by the churches to travel
with Paul and his company ( 2 Cor. 8 r8A).
It was probably in the course of this journey that
Paul went beyond the borders of Macedonia into the
26. At corinth neighbouring province of Illyricum
(Rom. 1519) ; but his real goal was
,2f$zs., Corinth. For the third time he went
there, and, overcoming the scruples of
his earlier visits, he was the guest of-Gaius, in'whose
house the meetings of the community were held (Rom.
16 23).
Of the incidents of Paul's visit to Corinth no record
remains; Acts does not even mention it. I t was the
culminating point, however, of his intellectiial activity ;
for in the course of it he wrote the greatest of all his
letters, the Epistle to the Romans. As the body of that
epistle throws a n invaluable light upon the tenor of his
preaching a t this time to the communities, among
which that of Rome can hardly have been singular, so
the salutations at the end, whether they be assumed to
be an integral part of the whole or not, are a wonderful
revelation of the breadth and intimacy of his relations
with the individual members of those communities.
But that which was as much in his mind as either the
great question of the relation of faith to the law or the
needs of individual converts in the Christian com-
munities was the collection of alms
a,. Alma for ' for the poor among the saints that
Christian poor' were a t Jerusalem' (Roni. 1526). T h e
communities of Palestine had probably never ceased to
be what the first disciples were, communities of paupers
in a pauperised country, and consequently dependent
upon external help.
All through his missionary journeys Paul had remembered
the injunction which had sealed his compact with 'the three
(Gal. 2 IO). In Galatia ( I Cor. 113I), among the poor and perse-
cuted churcheq nf hlacedonia(Rom.1526 2 Cor. 8 r-4) at Corinth
and in Achaia (1 Cor. IF 1-14 2 Cor. 8 and 9), the dentiles whd
had been made partakers with the Jews in spiritual things had
been effectuallytold that 'they owed to them also to minister
unto them in carnal things' (Rom. 1527).
T h e contributions were evidently on a large scale;
and Paul, to prevent the charges of malversation which
were sometimes made aeainst him. associated with him-
to his life ; and, instead of going direct to Jerusalem (an
intention which semis to be implied in Rom. 1525),he
and his companions took a circuitous route round the
coasts of the E g e a n Sea. His course lay through
Philippi, Troas, Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, and
Miletus, where he took farewell of the elders of the
community at Ephesus in an address of which some
reminiscences are probably preserved in Acts 2018.35.
Thence he went, by what was probably a n ordinary
route of commerce, to the Syrian coast, and at last he
PAUL
T h e narrative which Acts gives of the incidentsof Paul's
account
life a t Jerusalem is full of grave difficulties. It leaves
29. altogether in- the background what Paul
himself mentions as his chief reason for
in acts. making the visit : and it relates that h e
accepted the advice \;hich was given him to avail him-
self of the custom of vicarious vows, in order to show,
by his conformity to prevalent usages, that ' there was
no truth ' in the reports that he had told the Jews ' not
to circunrcise their children, neither to walk after the
customs' ( e t , 2120-26). If this narrative be judged
by the principles which Paul proclaims in the Epistle to
the Galatians, it seems hardly credible. H e had broken
with Judaism, and his whole preaching was a preaching
of the ' righteousness which is of faith,' as an antithesis
to, and as superseding, the 'righteousness which is of
the law.' Now he is represented as resting his defence
on his conformity to the law, on his being ' a Pharisee
and the son of Pharisees,' who was called in question
for the one point only that he believed, as other
Pharisees believed, in the resurrection of the dead.
What colouring of a later time, derived from later
controversies, has been spread over the original outline
of the history canmt now be told. Whilst on the one
hand the difficulties of the narrative as it stands cannot
be overlooked, on the other hand no faithful historian
will undertake, in the absence of all collateral evidence,
the task of discriniinating that which belongs to a con-
temporary testimony and that which belongs to a sub-
sequent recension. From this uncertainty the general
concurrence of even adverse critics excepts the ' w e '
section (Acts271 2816) ; whoever may have been the
author of those ' we' sections, and whatever may be the
amount of revision to which they have been subjected,
they seem to have for their basis the diary or itinerary
of a companion of Paul, and the account of the voyage
contains a t least the indisputable fact that Paul went to
Rome.
Paul's life at Rome and all the rest of his history are
enveloped in mists from which no single gleam of certain
light emerges. Almost every writer,
'30* whether apologetic or sceptical, has some
new hypothesis respecting i t ; and the
number and variety of the hypotheses which have been
already framed is a warning, until new evidence appears,
against adding to their number. The preliminary
questions which have to be solved before any hypothesis
can be said to have a foundation in fact are themselves
extremely intricate ; and their solution depends upon
considerations to which, in the absence of positive and
cannot easily be settled in the absence of collateral
evidence. since they mainly turn partly on the historical
probability of the rapid growth in those communities of
certain forms of theological speculation, and partly on
the psychological probability of the almost sudden de-
velopment in Paul's own mind of new methods of
conceiving and presenting Christian doctrine. The
pastoral epistles-viz., those to Timothy and to Titus-
have given rise to still graver questions, and are prob-
ably even less defensible.
 PAUL
of the several epistles be decided in each instance in the
31. Later life. affirmative, there remains the further
question whether they or any of them
belong to the period of Paul's imprisonment at Rome,
and, if so, what they imply as to his history. It is held
by many writers that they all belong to an earlier period
of his life, especially to his stay at Czsarea (Acts
2423 27). I t is held by other writers that they were all
sent from Rome, and with some such writers it has
become almost an article of faith that he was imprisoned
there not once but twice. It is sometimes further
supposed that in the interval between the first and
second imprisonments he made his intended journey
to Spain (Rorn. 1 5 2 4 : it is apparently regarded as an
accomplished fact by the author of the Muratorian
fragment) : and that either before or after his journey to
Spain he visited again the communities of the E g e a n
seaboard which are mentioned in the pastoral epistles.
The place and manner and occasion of Paul's death
are not less uncertain than the facts of his later life.
T h e only fragment of approximately contemporary
evidence is a vague and rhetorical passage in the letter
of Clement of Rome (1005) : ' Paul ... having taught
the whole world righteousness, and having come to the
goal of the West ( 6 d ~b d p p a T ~ Gducws),
S and having
borne witness ( ~ u ~ T u ~ S beforeU ~ S ) the rulers, so was
released from the world and went to the Holy Place,
having become the greatest example of patience.' T h e
two material points in this passage ( I ) ' the limit of the
West,' (2) having borne witness,' are fruitful sources
of controversy. The one may mean either Rome or
Spain, the other may mean either ' having testified' or
' having suffered martyrdom.' I t is not until towards
the end of the second century, after many causes had
operated both to create and to crush traditions. that
mention is made of Paul as having suffered about the
same time as Peter a t Rome ; but the credibility of the
assertion is weakened by its connection in the same
sentence with the [rhetorical] statement that Peter and
Paul [both taught in Italy in the same spirit as they
planted a n d taught in Corinth] (Dionysius of Cori&
quoted by Ensebius, H E 2 2 5 ) . A Roman presbyter
named Gaius speaks, a few years later, of the martyr-
tombs of the two apostles being visible a t Rome (quoted
by Eusebius. Z.C.) : but neither this testimony nor that
of Tertullian ( D e p m s c r . 36,Scorg. 15, A d z Marc. 45)
is sufficient to establish more than the general pcob-
ability that Paul suffered martyrdom. There is no
warrant for going beyond this, as almost all Paul's
biographers have done, and finding an actual date for
his martyrdom in the so-called Neronian persecution of
64 A . D . ~
T h e chronology of the rest of Paul's life is as uncertain
as the date of his death. W e have no means of knowing
when he was born, or how long he lived, or a t what
dates the several events of his life took place.
The nearest approach to a fixed point from which the dates of
some events may be calculated is that of the death of Festus,
which may probably, though by no means certainly, be placed
in 62 A . D . ; even if this date were certainly known, new evidence
would be required to determine the length of time during which
he held office; all that can or could be said is that Paul was sent
to Rome some time hefor. the death of Festus in 62 A . D . (cp
further CHRONOLOGV, $$ 64-84).2
1 The ' Martyrium Pauli' in Zacagni, Coll. mon. vet. cccl.
Rome, 1698, p. 535, gives not only details hut also a n exact date2
viz., 29thJune 66 A . D . ; t h e day has been adopted by the Latin
Church as the common anniversary of St. Peter a n d St. Paul.
All the early evidence which bears upon the point has been
collected by Kunze, Precipua patrutn ecclesiasticonon festi-
monia que ad mortem Pauli aposfoZi sjectant, Gijttingen,
rEp8 [cp Harnack, Ch7OmdOgik (1897), pp. 240-31.
2 How widely opinions differas to the rest of the chronology
may he seen hy a reference to t h e chronological table which is
given by Meyer in the introduction to his Commentary on fhc
Acts, and after him by Farrar St. Paul vol. ii. 624. The
literature of the suhject is exknsive; t6e most convenient
summary of the discussions, for English readers, will he found
in the introduction to Meyer's Comnrenfaryjust mentioned of
which there is a n ET [cp Harnack, C h o n . pp. 233-9; Meyer-
3619
PAUL
Of his personality Paul himself tells us as much as
need be known when he quotes the adverse remarks of
his opponents at Corinth : ' his letters,
32. His
personality. they say, are weighty and strong : but his
bodily presence is weak, and his speech
of no account' (zCbr: 1010). T h e Christian romance-
writer elaborated the picture, of which some traits may
have come to him from tradition : ' a man small in
stature, bald-headed, bow-It-gged. stout, close-browed,
with a slightly prominent nose, full of grace : for at one
time he seemed like a man, a t another time he had the
face of an angel ' ( ' Acta Pauli et Theclz,' 1 0 0 3 ; Tisch.
Achz Apost. Apocr. 41) ; and the pagan caricaturist
speaks of him in similar terms, as 'bald in front, with
a slightly prominent nose, who had taken a n aerial
journey into the third heaven ' (pseudo-Lucian, Philo-
patris, 1001z).'
That Paul was sometimes stricken down by illness is
clear from Gal.413 (some have thought also from
z Cor. 24) ; and at his moments of greatest exaltation
[not only did he enjoy visions and revelations, being
elevated into the third heaven, paradise, where he heard
inexpressible words ; but also] ' there was given to him
.
a stake in the flesh . . that he should not be exalted
overmuch' ( z Cor. 1 2 7 ) . The nature of this special
weakness has given rise to many conjectures ; the most
probable is that it was one of those obscure nervous
disorders which are allied to epilepsy and sometimes
mistaken for it.* E. H.
B. L ATER CRITICISM.
From the first, both in Germany and elsewhere, the
Tiibingen criticism met with strong opposition
._
I
as well as
33. mR.ansitional with cordial acceptance. The right
wing. which protested against it on
views. behalf of tradition, spared (and
continues to spare) no effort to recover ihe invaded
territory and to protect it, so far as may be, from
further attack. The most powerful champion of this
conservative attitude in recent years has been Th. Zahn,
author of the Einkitung in das nezie Testament (zvols.
1897-99,(E) 1900).
Those who were not so timid about breaking with
traditional views or with opinions that had been judged
to be no longer tenable, inclined, nevertheless, especially
in recent years, to consider that Baur had gone to the
extreme limit of criticism and to think that some retreat,
along part of the line at least, from his 'extravagances'
was necessary. They did not shut their eyes to the
great merits of the Tiibingen school : but neither would
they be blind to their faults and shortcomings which
seemed to admit of being summed u p in the single word
o exaggeration.' They called themselves by choice the
critical school, and could appropriately enough be de-
scribed as indeed 'moderately' so. Those who have
in recent years gone farthest in this reactionary direction
(or, let us call it, retrogression) are, in practice, A.
Julicher in his Einkifung in ~ Q N S T , 1894. 1901(~),
and, in theory, A. Harnack in the ' Preface' (which is
not to be coufounded with the contents which follow) to
his Chronologie der alfchrisflichn Lifterafur (= ACL
21. 1897).
Later criticism that may fairly enough be called
'advanced,' in the sense that its conclusions differ
W'endt Kommenfar AGPI 1899, pp. 53-60' Th. Zahn Einl.
in das h'T('4 ii. (rgoo) 629-471. and CHRONO&Y %I64-bq.1
1 Some early representatiok of him on gildeh glasses and
sarco hagi still remain ; accounts of them will be found in Smith
and Eheetham, Dirt. Ckr. Ant. 2 16Zl ; Schultze, Die Kata-
kom6en, Leipsic, 1882, p. 149.
2 See Krenkel, ' Das korperliche Leiden des Pnulus ' in the
ZWT,1873, p. 238, and in Beifrirge 2. Au&elluun*. d. desch. u:
d. Sn& des A). Paulus (1890). 4, ' d e r Dorn im Fleische
47-12j ; and for various views, Lightfoot, Galatians, 189z, p'.
186; Farrar, St. Paul, vol. i., Excurs. 1 0 6 5 2 [van Manen,
Paulus, 3 284 ; Meyer-Heinrici, Kommentnr, 2 Cor.(B)1900, p
397-402 ; Ramsay, St. P a u i t h Traveller andRoman Citizen,&
1898, 94 fi (' a species of chronic malaria fever 71. Cp EYE,
DISEASES OF, 5 4.
3620
 PAUL
more than those of others from traditional opinion starts
34. A new school. from the same principles as the ' criti-
cal school.' though its opvonents
prefer such expressions for it as.'scepti&,'
L
the 'radical '
.
or the ' Dutch school,' 'hypercriticism.' ' uncriticism ' or
(as Jiilicher has it recently) ' pseudo-criticism.' T h e
way for it was prepared, not to speak of Evanson (1792).
by Urnno Bauer, A. Pierson, S. A. Naber, and others.
By Bruno Bauer in his three volumes entitled Iiritik der
paulinisrhen b'nkje (1850-52), and again after a silence of many
years in his Clrrirtus und die Caesarerr (7877 ; see especially
pp. 377-387); by A. Pierson in De fiergrede en andere synop-
fische fragmenten (r878 ; p. 98-rro); by him and Naber i n
their Veriszmilia (r886); g y others in dissertatlons and dls-
courses on various public occasions in Holland of which some
account is to he found in / P T , 1883, pp. 593-618; 1884, pp.
562-3; 1886,pp, 418-444(L)utch: W.C. van hlanen,HetNzeuwe
Testamen%sederf 1859, 1886,pp. 89-126,225-7, 265).
T h e Pauline question, however, was first brought
forward in a strictly scientific form by A. D. Loman
of Amsterdam in his a Quzestiones Paulinze,' published
in Th.T in 1882, 1883, 1886. This broadly-based
study, however, in the beginning still intimately con-
nected with the writer's much discussed hypothesis of
the symbolical character of the Gospel history and the
person of Jesus, Loman did not live to complete. T h e
portions published by him were the ' Prolegomena' to
a book on the principal epistles of Paul, in which the
necessity for a revision of the foundations of our know-
ledge of the original Paulinism and the expediency, for
this purpose, of starting from the Epistle to the Galatians
are fully set forth (1882, pp. 141-185. cp 593-616);
a first chapter in which the external evidence for and
against the genuineness of that Epistle is exhaustively
discussed (1882, pp. 302-328, 452-487 ; 1883. pp.
14-57 ; 1886, pp. 42-55), and a second chapter in
which the same question is considered in the light of
the Canon (1886, pp. 55-113, cp 319-349, 387-406).
At a later date an unfinished study, D e Brief aan de
Gafatieys, was posthumously added to these as Loman's
Nafatenschap (1899). Meanwhile various scholars-!.
C. Matthes. J. van Loon, H. U. Meyboom, J. A. Bruins
-had signified their agreement with him wholly or
partially, and he was followed in the path of advancing
criticism he had opened up, as regards the question of
the sources of our knowledge of Paul, his life and his
work, though without for a moment committing them-
selves to Loman's hypothesis respecting the gospel
history, by Rudolf Steck of Bern, D. E. J. Volter of
Amsterdam, and W. C. van Manen of Leyden.
Steck's well-written book D e r Galater6nef nach seiner
Echtheit untersucht, nebst Kritischen Bemerkungen aus
den paulinischen Hauptdriefen was published in 1888 ;
Volter's ' E i n Votum zur Frage nach der Echtheit,
Integritat u. Composition der vier paulinischen Haupt-
briefe' was published in Th. T i n 1889 (pp. 265-325).
bnt still remains unfinished in its revised form D i e
h>omposifion der pazrfinischen H a u p f b r i d e : I. D e r
Romer- u. Gafaterbrief (1890). Van Manen, a s yet
hesitatingly in 1886-87, but decidedly in 1888 as a
contributor to Th. T and other periodicals, and subse-
quently in connection with his academical work, has
participated largely in the present discussions.'
See especially his Paufus in three parts: De Nandelingen
der Apostcicn(Acts), 1890: De driefaan de Romeinen, 189, ;
De brimen aan de h-orinthiers, 1896 ; followed by a condensed
summary of the results arrived at in his Hudfeidin;, uoor de
Oadchri.~te+he fetterkunde, 1900. For a somewhat fuller
survey of the earlier history of this critici-m and of the reception
it met with in the learned world the reader may consult his
articles entitled ' A Wave of Hypercriticism ' in Ex?. T 9 , 1898,
PP. 2 0 5 - 2 1 1, '257-9, ,314-9.
The same critical principles of the ' later criticism '-
recently adopted also by Prof. W. B. Smith of Tulane
University. New Orleans (see ROMANS)-have likewise
been in some measure followed, however unconsciously
in the main, by all those who at one time or another have
sought, by postulating redactions, interpolations, and
[I To such an extent indeed as would justify him in saying
without immodesty quorum pars magna fui.]
3621
PAUL
additions, to escape from the difficulties in the way of
- - the Pauline authorship of one or more of the
accepting
35. ' principal epistles.'
Its relation It will suffice to mention ( I ) with
to regard to all the four epistles : the
view of J. H. A. Michelsen ( T h . T,
1873. p. 421) that in these we have the
- -
original epistles of Paul published after
his death with elucidations and notes ; ais0 conjectures
by Straatman, Baljon (1884) and Sulze ( P r o i . Kirch.-
Zg.,1888, pp. 978-85).
( 2 ) So far a s Romans is concerned, we have the
conjecture of Semler, Baur, and others, that chaps. 15
16, wholly or in part, do not belong to the fourteen
preceding chapters. and, according to many, are not
from the hand of Paul ; that of- C. H. Weisse, that
chaps. 9-11, of Straatman. that chaps. 32-14, do not
belong to the original epistle ; of Laurent (1866), that
the epistle a t a later date was furnished with a number
of marginal glosses ; of Renan, that it was issued by
Paul in more than one form (e.g.,1-11 +IS, 1-14+part
of 16) ; of Michelsen ( 7 h . T , 1886-7) that we have to
distinguish five or six editions in the original text ; of
E. Spitta (1893) that it is a combination of two letters
written by Paul a t different times to the Christians of
Rome, one before and one after his visit to that city.
( 3 ) With respect to I and 2 Corinthians, we have
the conjecture of Semler (1776), E. J. Greve (1794).
Weber (1798), C. H. Weisse (1855), Hausrath (1870).
Michelsen (1873). Baljon (1884), 0. Ptleiderer (1887).
W. Briickner (1890). M. Krenkel (1890). P. W.
Schmiedel (1892), J. Cramer (1893).A. Halniel(1894).
J. Weiss (1894), H. J. Holtzmann (1894), H. Lisco
(1896) that 2 Cor. is made up of two or more pieces
which originally did not belong to one another; of
Lipsius (1873), Hagge (1876), Spitta (1893), Clemen
(1894) that the same holds true of I Cor. ; and of
Straatman (1863-5) and J. A. Bruins (1892) that both
epistles contain a vast number of interpolations.
( 4 ) s! regards Gal., the same opinion has k e n held
by Weisse, Sulre, Baljon (1889) and Cramer (1890)-
the last two in their commentaries.
Yet, however obvious in all this be the unconscious
preparation'for and transition to the criticism spoken of
36. Its pro- in 5 34, this last does not occupy itself
posed task. with such conjectures a s those just sug-
gested (in 5 35), unless perhaps in special
cases, and never with the definite object of escaping by
such means from difficulties touching what is called the
genuineness of the Epistles. It is ready to submit all
such hypotheses to a candid examination, but does not
value expedients whereby objections can be silenced
temporarily. It does not start from the belief that the
non plus u l f r a of critical emancipation has been realised
by the Tiibingen school ; but neither does it think that
that school went too far. For it, there is nothing u
p r i o r i ' too far' in this field ; and it believes that
criticism is ever in duty bound to criticise its own work
and to repair its defects. It recognises n o theoretical
limit whatsoever that can reasonably be fixed. It ranks
the critical labours of Baur and his school, notwith-
standing all shortcomings and defects, far above those
of older and less critically moulded scholars. It wishes
nothing better than, mutatis mutandis, to continue the
research pursued by the Tubingen school, and, standing
o n the shoulders of Banr and others, and thus pre-
sumably with the prospect of seeing clearer and farther.
to advance another stage, as long a stage a s possible,
towards a real knowledge of Christian antiquity.
That is not to be attained, in the judgment of this
school of critics, by a simple return to the old views, by
accepting the opinions of those scholars who busied
themselves with researches of this kind before Baur (in
the first decades of the 19th century or in the last of
the 18th), nor yet by adopting the traditioiial con-
ceptions current at a still earlier period whether amongst
3622
 PAUL
candid Protestants or thinking Roman Catholics. No
error committed by a younger generation can ever make
to he true anything in the opinions of an older genera-
tion which has once been discovered to have been false.
Still less does the criticism with which we are now
dealing cherish hopes from any mediating policy of
'give and take.' It has found that it does not avail,
in estimating the Tiibingen theory, in one point or
another, to plead ' extenuating circumstances ' in favour
of tradition whether churchly or scientific, and to offer
here or there an amendment on the sketch drawn by
Baur (or others after him) of the state of schools and
parties in Old Christianity, or to extend the number of
the ' indisputably genuine ' epistles of Paul from four to
six or seven (the ' principal epistles ' + Philippians,
Philemon and I Thess.). eight ( + 2 Thess. or Col.),
nine ( + b o t h 2 Thess. and Col.), ten ( + Eph. ), if not
even augmented by genuine Pauline fragments in the
Pastoral Epistles. T h e defects of the 'tendency
s m ' passed upon the N T writings and other
documents of early Christianity which have come down
to us, whether the criticism in which Baur led the way
o r that of others like Volkmar, Holsten. S. Davidson,
Hatch (who followed Baur, while introducing into his
criticism corrections more or less far-reaching), demand
a more drastic course. I t is needful to break not
only with the dogma of the principal epistles' in the
order suggested by Baur and afterwards accepted by
Hatch-Gal., I and 2 Cor., Ram.-but also with the
dogma of there being four epistles of Paul in any
order with regard to the genuineness of which no
question ought to be entertained. It was a great
defect in the criticism of the Tubingen school that
it set out from this assumption without thinking of
justifying it. It can be urged in excuse, that a t the
time no one doubted its justice ; Evanson was forgotten
and Bruno Bauer had not yet arisen ; but none the less
the defect cannot be regarded as other than serious. It
has wrought much mischief and must be held responsible
for the song of triumph now being prematurely uttered
even by those whose opposition to criticism is by no
means trenchant, the burden of which is, 'Tiibingen
itself has alleged nothing against these epistles.' T h e
latest school of advanced criticism has learned not to
rejoice over this but to regret an unfinished piece of
work that ought to have been taken in hand long ago
and demands to be taken up now. It regrets that Baur
and his followers should not have stopped to consider
the origin of the 'principal epistles.' It holds that
criticism should investigate. not only those books which
have been doubted for a longer or shorter period, hut
also even those that hitherto-it may even be, by
every one-bave been held to be beyond all doubt,
whether they be canonical o r uncanonical, sacred or
profane. Criticism is not a t liberty to set out from the
genuineness-or the spuriousness-of any writing that
is to be used as evidence in historical research as long
a s the necessary light has not been thrown upon it,
and least of all may it do so after some or many
writings of the same class have already been actually
found to be. pseudepigrapha. It was and is in the
highest degree a one-sided and arbitrary proceeding to
go with Baur upon the nm~m~nphon of the genuineness
of the ' principal epistles' as fully established, and in
accordance with this to assume that Acts must take a
subordinate place in comparison with them. It is not
a priori established that Paul cannot be mistaken, a t
least as long as we d o not know with certainty whether
he and the writer of the epistles that have come down
to us under his name are indeed one and the same.
The investigation of Acts must be carried on independ-
ently of that of the Epistles, just as that of the Epistles
must be independent of that of Acts. This rule must
be applied in the case of every epistle separately as well
as in connection with the other epistles which we have
learned to recognise as belonging to the same group.
3623
PAUL
The four ' principal epistles ' are not a fixed datum by
which Acts and other Pauline writings can be tested
unless one is previously able to prove their genuineness.
This point has not been taken into account by the
Tubingen school-greatly to their loss. As soon as it
is observed, it becomes the task of criticism to subject
to a strict examination the principal epistles one by one,
from this point of view. What, then, is the criterion
which may be employed in this investigation? None
of the so-called external evidences. These do not avail
here, however valuable may he what they have to tell
us often as to the opinion of antiquity concerning these
writings. So much Baur and his followers had already
long ago learned to recognise. T h e ' critical school '
had confessed it, even by the mouth of those among its
adherents who had found themselves nearest to the
thorough-going defenders of tradition. Where then
must the determining consideration he looked for? I n
the direction where in such circunistances it is always
wont to be found : in the so-called ' internal' evidence.
I t is internal criticism that must speak the last, the so
far as possible conclusive, word.
The demand seemed to many too hard, as regarded
the ' principal epistles.' T h e Tiibingen school and the
' critical' school alike shrank from making it. The
' progressive' criticism which had meanwhile come into
being, submitted to the inevitable. It addressed itself
to the task imposed. T o the question, with what
result? the answer, unfortunately, cannot be said to be
wholly unanimous. True, this is a disadvantage under
arty labours no less than the other.
in the judgments of which no trace
can be found of what can be called a subjective side.
Viewed broadly, and with divergences in points of
detail left out of account, what the recent criticism now
. Its view described has to say regarding Acts is in
3
,
of lLets. substance as follows. The book professes
to be a sequel to the third canonical
gospel, designed in common with it to inform a certain
Theophilus otherwise unknown to us, or in his person
any recent convert to Christianity, more precisely with
regard to the things in which he has been instructed
(ActslI-5. cp Lk. 11.4 2436-53). W e find in it in
accordance with this, a by no means complete, yet at
the same time (at least, in some measure) an orderly
and continuous sketch of the fortunes of the disciples of
Jesus, after his resurrection and ascension; of their
appearances in Jerusalem and elsewhere ; and in par-
ticular, of the life and work of Peter, in the first part
(Acts 1-12), and more fully and amply of the life and
work of Paul, in the second part (13-28).
Even leaving aside any comparison with the Pauline
epistles, we cannot regard the contents of Acts, viewed
as a whole, and on their own merits, as a true and
credible first-hand narrative of what had actually
occurred, nor yet as the ripe fruit of earnest historical
research-not even where, in favourable circumstances,
the author might occasionally have been in a condition
to give this. T h e book bears in part a legendary-
historical, in part an edifying and apologetical character.
The writer's intention is to instruct Theophilns concern-
ing the old Christian past, as that presented itself to his
owii mind after repeated examination, to increase
the regard and affection of his readers for Christianity,
and at the same time to show forth how from the first,
although hated by the Jews, this religion met with
encouragement on the part of the Romans. Of a
'tendency,' in the strict sense of the word, as under-
stood by the Tubingen school, there is nothing to be
seen. T h e book does not aim at the reconciliation of
conflicting parties, Petrinists and Paulinists, nor yet at
the exaltation of Paul or at casting his Jewish adversaries
into the shade, or at placing him on a level with Peter.
Of the substantial unity of the work there can be no
question. W e have not here any loose aggregation of
fragments derived from various sources. Still less,
3624
 PAUL
however, can we fail to recognise that older authorities
have been used in its composition. Amongst these are
prominent two books which we may appropriately call
(u)Acts of Paul, and (6) Acts of Peter. From a is
derived in the main what we now read in 123 (D),
436-37 6 1 - 1 5 751-83 91-301119-30 13-28 ; from 6, more
particularly, much of chaps. 1-12
(a)The first and older of the two hooks included mainly a
sketch of the life and work of Paul, according to the ideas of
those Christianswho placed him high, and who, as compared with
others, deserve to be called progressive. With this was worked
in-hut not incorporated without change (unless the corrections
which can still be traced are to he laid to the account of the
author of Acts)-a journey narrative, very possibly the work of
Luke the cornDanion of Paul. See 11 27. (D). . ,. 16 10-17. 20 -5-15-
21 1-18 27 1-281'6.
(@.The second book, written in view of the Acts of Paul just
described, was a n attempt to allow more justice to he done to
tradition a n d more light to be thrown upon Peter.
PerhaDs the author of the entire work. as we now
know it,' in addition to oral tradition, had still other
means of information at his disposal (such as Flavius
Josephus) and borrowed here and there a detail, but
certainly not much, from the Pauline epistles.
Alternately free a n d fettered in relation to his
authorities, the author sometimes used their language,
yet, as a rule, employed his own. H e followed in their
footsteps for the most part, yet frequently went his own
way, transposing and correcting, supplementing and
abridging what he had found in others. To ascertain
the details of the process in every case is no longer
possible. O n the chief points, a fuller discussion will
be found in W. C. van Manen, PauZus: I . De Hunde-
lingen der AposteLen, 1890.
The spirit in which Lk. set about his work is that of budding
Catholicism. which has room alike for 'Paul' and for 'Peter.
and does not shrink from bringing to the notice of the faithful
a writing-the Acts of Paul just referred to-devoted to thq
commemoration and glorificationof the 'apostle of t h e heretics
as Tertullian still called him, albeit clothed in a new dress
whereby at the same time reverent homage is rendered to the
tradition of the ancients.
Lk.'s true name remains unknown. His home was probably
in Rome: but perhaps it m a y have heen somewhere in Asia
Minor. He flourished about the second quarter of the second
century. There is n o necessity for doubting the correctness of
the representation that he is one and the same with t h e author
of t h e Third Gospel.
I n the days when the contents of sacred books were
held exempt from criticism, the historical value of Acts
was much overrated ; more recently under the influence
of Tiibingen criticism it has been unduly depreciated. It
is entitled to recognition in so far as it is a rich source
of information as to how the Christianity of the first 30
or 35 years after the crucifixion was spoken about,
estimated, and taught, in influential circles. about the
years I ~ O - I ~ A O .D. It is entitled t o recognition also,
in so far as we are still in a position to trace, in what
has been taken over with or without alteration from
older works, how it was that men of that period thought
about implied, or expressly mentioned persons, things,
and relations. I n estimating the value of details, it is
incumbent o n us always, so far as possible, to distinguish
between the original historical datum, the valuable
substance of a trustworthy tradition, and the one-fold,
two-fold, threefold, or it may be manifold clothing with
which this has been invested by later views and opinions,
a n d in too many cases, unfortunately, concealed by
them, in such a manner that it IS not always possible,
even for the keenest eye, to discriminate as could be
wished between truth and fiction.
With respect to the canonical Pauline epistles, the
later criticism here under consideration has learned t o
38. Ofthe recognise that they are none of them by
epistIes. Paul ; neither fourteen, nor thirteen, nor
nine or ten, nor seven or eight, nor yet even
the four so long ' universally ' regarded as unassailable.
They are all, without distinction, pseudepigrapha (this,
of course, not implying the least depreciation of their
contents). T h e history of criticism, the breaking u p of
the group which began as early as 1520, already pointed
in this direction. No distinction can any longer be
3625
PAUL
allowed between ' principal epistles ' a n d minor or
deutero-Pauline ones. The separation is purely arbi-
trary, with no foundation in the nature of the things
here dealt with. The group-not to speak of Hebrews
a t present-when compared with the Johannine epistles,
with those of James, Jude, Ignatius. Clement, with
the gospel of Matthew, or the martyrdom of Polycarp,
bears obvious marks of a certain unity-of having
originated in one circle, at one time, in one environ-
ment ; but not of unity of authorship, even if a term
of years-were it even ten or twenty-be allowed. It
is impossible, on any reasonable principle, to separate
one or more pieces from the rest. One could immedi-
ately with equal right pronounce a n opposite judgment
and condemn4.g.. Romans or Corinthians, compared
with the rest, as under suspicion. Every partition is
arbitrary. However one may divide them, there will
always remain (within the limits of each group, and on
a comparison of the contents of any two or three
assumed classes), apart from corrections of subordinate
importance, clearly visible traces of agreement and of
divergence-even on a careful examination of the
famous four : Rom., I and 2 Cor., Gal. There is no
less distinction in language, style, religious or ethical
contents between I and 2 Cor. on the one hand, a n d
Rom. and Gal. on the other, than there is between
Rom. and Phil., Col. and Philem. On the contrary,
in the last two cases the agreement is undeniably
greater.
Tradition does not assert the Pauline origin of the
' principal epistles ' more loudly than it does that of the
pastoral or of the ' minor ' epistles. External evidences
plead a t least as strongly, or, to speak more accurately,
just as weakly, for the latter as for the former. T h e
internal point just as strongly in the case of Roni., I and
z Cor., and Gal., as they d o elsewhere to the one con-
clusion that they are not the work of Paul. This
deliverance rests mainly on the following considerations,
each of them a conclusion resulting from independent
yet intimately connected researches.
The ' principal epistles,' like all the rest of the group,
present themselves to us as epistles ; but this is not their
39. Their real character in the ordinary and literary
form. meaning of the word. They are not letters
originally intended for definite persons,
despatched to these, and afterwards by publication made
the common property of all. On the contrary, they
were, from the first, books ; treatises for instruction,
and especially for edification, written in the form of
letters in a tone of authority as from the pen of Paul and
other men of note who belonged to his entourage:
I Cor. by Paul and Sosthenes, z Cor. by I'aul and
Timothy, Gal. (at least in the exordium) by Paul and
all the brethren who were with him ; so also Phil., Col.
and Philem., by Paul and Timothy, I and 2 Thess. by
Paul, Silvanus. and Timothy. The object is to make
it appear as if these persons were still living at the time
of composition of the writings, though in point of fact
they belonged to a n earlier generation. Their ' epistles '
accordingly. even in the circle of their first readers, gave
themselves out as voices from the past. They were
from the outset intended to exert a n influence in as wide
a circle a s possible ; more particularly, to be read alond
at the religious meetings for the edification of the church,
or to serve as a standard for doctrine and morals.
Hence it comes that, among other consequences, we
never come upon any trace in tradition of the impression
which the supposed letters of Paul may ha\re made-
though, of course, each of them must, if genuine, have
produced its own impression-npon the Christians a t
Rome, at Corinth, in Galatia ; and the same can be said
of all the other canonical epistles of Paul. Hence, also,
the surprising and otherwise unaccountable features in
the addresses of the epistles : ' to all that are in Rome,
beloved of God, called to be saints ' (Rom. 17). ' to the
church of God which is a t Corinth, them that a r e
3626
 PAUL
sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with a N
who invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in all
places, theirs and ours ' (I Cor. 1z ) ; ' to the church of
God which is a t Corinth, with all the saints in the whole
of Achaia' ( z Cor. If), ' t o the churches of Galatia'
(Gal. 12). The artificial character of the epistolary form
comes further to light with special clearness when we
direct our attention to the composition of the writings.
In such manner real letters are never written.
i. In a very special degree does this hold true no doubt of
*Cor. Many scholars, belonging in other respects to very
different schools, have been convinced for more than a century
and have sought to persuade others that this epistle was not
written at one gush or even at intervals ; that it consists of an
aggregation of fragments which had not originally the same
destination.
ii. I Cor. allows us to see no less clearly that there underlie
the finished epistle as known to us several greater or smaller
treatises, h a v i n g such subjects as the following :-parties and
divisions in t h e church (1 10-3 23) the authority of the apostles
(4), unchastity (5-6), married and'unmarried life (7), the eating
of that which has been offered to idols (8-11I), the veiling of
women (11 2-15 [16]), love feasts (11 17-34),spiritual gifts (12-14)
the resurrection (15), a collection for the saints (16 1-4&othe;
passages being introduced relating to the superiority of t h e
preaching of the cross above the wisdom of this world (1 18-31),
the spirit in which Paul had lahoured (2 1-16), the right of litiga-
tion between Christians (6 1-11), circumcised and uncircumcised,
bond and free (7 18-24), the apostolic service (9), Christian love
('%. With regard to Rom. it is even more obvious that the
author accomplished his task with t h e help of writings, perhaps
older 'epistles ' treatises, sayings handed down whether orally
or in w r i t i n g l a l t h o u g h we must admit, as in the case of so
many other books, both older and more recent, that we are not
in a position to indicate with any detail what has been borrowed
fTom this source and what from that, or what has been derived
from no previous source whatever, and is t h e exclusive property
of the author, editor, or adapter.
iv. With Gal. t h e case is in some respects different, and
various reasons lead us, so far as the canonical text is concerned
to think of a catholic adaptation of a letter previously read i;
the circle of the Marcionites, although we are no longer in a
position to restore the older form. We have in view the employ-
ment of such words as Peter (IIdrpos) alongside of Cephas
(KqqGs), of two forms of the name Jerusalem ('IeppodAvwa
alongside of ' I ~ p o v u d q p ) the , presence of discrepant views (as
in 3 7 24 and 3 16) of Abraham's seed ; the zeal against circurn-
cision in 5 2-4 6 12-13 alongside of the frank recognition that it is
of no significance (56615tthe cases in which the ancients
charged hlarcion with having falsified the text, though the
textual criticism of modern times has found it nrcessary to
invert the accusation.
There are to be detected, accordingly, in the com-
position of the ' principal epistles' phenomena which,
whatever be the exact explanation arrived, a t in each
case, all point a t least to a peculiarity in the manner of
origin of these writings which one is not accustomed to
find, and which indeed is hardly conceivable, in ordinary
letters.
The contents of the epistles, no less than the results
of a n attentiveconsideration of their form,
40. Their lead to the conclusion that the ' principal
contents :
Paulinism.l epistles ' cannot be the work of the apostle
Paul.
i. Is it likely that Paul, a man of authority and recog-
nised as such a t the time, would have written to the
Christians at Rome-men who were personally unknown
to him-what, on the assumption of the genuineness of
the epistle, we must infer he did write? That he would
have taken so exalted a tone, whilst a t the same time
forcing himself to all kinds of shifts in writing to his
spiritual children a t Corinth and in Galatia? One
cannot form to oneself any intelligible conception of his
attitude either to the one or to the other ; nor yet of the
mutual relations of the parties and schools which we
must conceive to have been present and to some extent
in violent conflict with one another if Paul really thought
and said about them what we find in the principal
epistles. '
ii. Even if we set all this aside, however, the doctrinal
and religious-ethical contents betoken a development in
Christian life and thought of such magnitude and depth
as Paul could not possibly have reached within a few
l CP 0 47,
3627
PAUL
years after the crucifixion. So large an experience, so
great a widening of the field of vision, so high a degree
of spiritual power as would have been required for this
it is impossible to attribute to him within so limited a
time.
It does not avail as a way of escape from this diffi-
culty to assume, as some do, a slow development in the
case of Paul whereby it becomes conceivable that when
he wrote the principal epistles ' he had reached a height
which he had not yet attained fourteen or twenty years
previously. There is no evidence of any such slow
development as is thus assumed. I t exists only in the
imagination of exegetes who perceive the necessity of
some expedient to remove difficulties that are felt
though not acknowledged. Moreover, the texts speak
too plainly in a diametrically opposite sense. It is only
necessary to read the narrative of Paul's conversion as
given by himself according to Gal. 110-16 in order to see
this. The bigoted zealot for the law who persecuted the
infant church to the death did not first of all attach
himself to those who professed the new religion in order
to become by little and little a reformer of their ideas
and intuitions. On the contrary, on the very instant
that he had suddenly been brought to a breach with his
Jewish past, he publicly and a t once came forward with
all that was specially great and new in his preaching.
The gospel he preached was one which he had received
directly. It was not the glad tidings of the Messiah,
the long expected One, who was to come to bless his
people Israel; it was the preaching of a new divine
revelation, and this not communicated to him through
or by man, but immediately from above, from God
himself, God's Son revealed in him. With this revela-
tion was at the same time given to him the clear insight
and ...the call to go forth as a preacher to the Gentiles.
in. Underlying the principal epistles there is, amongst
other things, a definite spiritual tendency, a n inherited
type of doctrine (Rom. 617)-Iet us say the older
Paulinism-with which the supposed readers had long
been familiar. They are wont to follow it, now in
childlike simplicity, now with eager enthusiasm, or to
assail it, not seldom obstinately, with all sorts of
weapons and from various sides. Some have already
got beyond this and look upon Paulinism more as if it
were a past stage, a surmounted point of view. One
might designate them technically as Hyperpaulinists.
They are met with especially amongst Paul's opponents
a t Corinth according to I and z Cor. Others remain
in the rear or have returned to the old view, the Jewish
or Jewish-Christian view which had preceded Paulinism.
They are the Judaisers against whom above all others
the Galatians are warned and armed. Both are groups
which one can hardly imagine to oneself as subsisting,
at least in the strength here supposed, during the life-
time of Paul. Plainly Paul is not a contemporary, but
a figure of the past. H e is the object or, if you will,
the central point of all their zeal and all their efforts.
iv. Paulinism itself, as it is held up and defended in
the ' principal epistles,' apart from diversities in the
elaboration of details by the various writers, is nothing
more or less than the fruit of a thorough-going re-
formation of the older form of Christianity. Before
it could he reached the original expectations of the
first disciples of Jesus had to be wholly or partly given
up. The conception of Jesus a s the Messiah in the old
Jew-ish meaning of the word had to give place to a
more spiritual conception of the Christ the Son of God ;
the old divine revelation given in the sacred writings of
Israel had to make way for the newer revelation vouch-
safed immediately by God, in dreams and visions, by
day and by night, and through the mediation, if media-
tion it can be called, of the Holy Ghost : the law had
to yield to the gospel. For these things time-no little
time--was needed, even in days of high spiritual tension
such as must have been those in which the first Christians
lived and in which many are so ready to take refuge in
3628
 PAUL
order to be able to think it possible that the ' principal
epistles,' with their highly varied contents could have
been written so soon after the death of Jesus as the
theory of Pauline authorship compels us to assume.
v. Writers and readers, as we infer from the contents,
live in the midst of problems which-most of them at
all events-when carefully considered are seen not to
belong to the first twenty or thirty years after the death
of Jesus. W e refer to questions as to the proper relation
between law and gospel, justification by faith or by
works, election and reprobation, Christ according to the
flesh and Christ according to the Spirit, this Jesus or
another, the value of circumcision. the use of clean or
unclean things, sacrificial flesh, common flesh and other
ordinary foods and drinks, the Sabbath and other holy
days, revelations and visions, the married and the un-
married condition, the authority of the apostles, the
marks of true apostleship and a multitude of others.
W e must not be taken in by superficial appearances.
Though Paul is represented as speaking, in reality he
himself and his fellow apostles alike are no longer alive.
Everywhere there is a retrospective tone. I t is always
possible to look back upon them and upon the work
they achieved.
Paul has planted, another has watered ( I Cor. 3 6). H e as
a wise master-builder has laid the foundation; another has
built thereupon (3 IO). H e himself is not to come again (4 18).
H e and his fellow-apostles have already 'been made a spectacle
unto the world, both to angels and to men,' God has 'set them
forth as men doomed to death, lowest and last '-Le., given them
the appearance of being persons of the lowest sort ( 4 ~ ) . Their
fight has been fought, their sufferings endured. I t IS already
possible to judge as to the share of each in thegreat work. Paul,
t o whom Christ appeared after his resurrection ' last of all,' ' the
least of the apostles,' ha? ' laboured more abundantly than they
all' (15 8-10); he has run his course in the appointed way (9 26,6),
a follower of Christ (even as others may be followers of himself,
11 I), whose walk in the world can readily stand comparison with
that of others, even the most highly placed in Christian circles
cor. 1 I Z 11 5 12 IT), who has been ever victorious, whom God
has always led in triumph, making manifest the savour of his
knowledge by him in every place; 'unto God a sweet savour of
Christ,' by his comins forward testifying, as in the sight of God,
ofthesacrificemade by Christ in hisdeath; sufficient forall things
(2 14-16) : a pattern of long-suffering, patience, and perseverance,
who had more to endure than any other man (4 8-10 6 4-5 7 5
11 23-27), a n ideal form whose sufferings have accrued to the
benefit of others and been a source of comfort to many (4 mfi
14-7).
vi. A special kind of Christian gnosis, a wisdom that
far transcends the simplicity of the first disciples and
their absorption with Messianic expectations haunts and
occupies many of the more highly-developed minds
( I Cor. 117-31 2 6 16 and elsewhere). In Rom. 9-11 the
rejection of Israel is spoken of in a manner that cannot
be thought to have been possible before the fall of the
Jewish state in 70 A.D. The church is already con-
ceived of as exposed to bloody persecutions, whereas,
during Paul's lifetime, so far as is known to us, no such
had as yet arisen (Rom. 5 3-5 8 17-39 12 IZ 14 z Cor. 13-7) ;
she has undoubtedly been in existence for more than a
few years merely, as is usually assumed, and indeed
requires to be assumed, on the assumption of the
genuineness of the epistles.
T h e church has already, from being in a state of spiritual
poverty, come to be rich ( I Cor. 15). Originally in no position to
sound the depths, consisting of a company of hut little developed
persons, the majority of its members though still in a certain
sense ' carnal ' are ahle to follow profound discussions on questions
so difficult as those of speaking with tongues, prophecy, or the
resurrection ( I Cor. 12-15). There are already ' perfect' ones
who can be spoken to about the matters of the higher wisdom ;
spiritual ones who can digest strong nourishment ; understand-
ing ones who have knowledge (26.16 3 1-3 10 15). T h e church is
in possession of their traditions (11 2 2 3 15 3) : epistles of Paul
which presented a picture of him different from the current
tradition received from those who had associated with him
( 2 Cor. 1 13 10 IO). There is a n ordered church life to the follow-
ing of which the members are held bound. There are fixed and
definite customs and usages- such as regular collections of
charitable gifts (2 Cor. 9 13) or the setting apart, when required,
of persons whose names were in good repute, aiid who had been
chosen, by the laying on of hands (8 18$).
In a word, the church has existed not for a few years
merely. T h e historical background of the epistles, even
of the principal epistles, is a later age. The Christianity
3629
PAUL
therein professed, presupposed, and avowed, in a number
of its details does not admit of being explained by refer-
ence to the period preceding the date of Paul's captivity
or even that of his death in 64 A. D. Everything points
to later days-at least the close of the first or the be-
ginning of the second century.
Necessary limitations of space do not allow of fuller
elucidations here. The reader who wishes to do real
justice to the view here taken of the question as to the
genuineness of Paul's epistles will not stop at the short
sketch given here, but will consult the following works
among others :-
( a ) On the subject as a whole, Loman, 'Quzstiones Paulinz'
in Th.T, 1882, pp. 141-185;cp 593.616, 1886, 55-1r3; c p 319.
349 and 387.406; Steck, GalaferbrieA 1-23, 152-386. (6) On
Rom. and Cor., Van Manen, Puulus, 2 and 3. (c) O n Gal.
Steck, GalaZerbrirf; cp Loman, ' Quzst. Paul.' in Th. 7,1882:
pp. 302-328, 452-487' 1883, pp. 14-57; 1886, pp. 42-55; and
L0man.s Nalafensrhbj, 1899 ; ( d ) for a general survey of the
entire Pauline group, Van Manen, Handleiding, iii., $8 1-98
(PP. 30-63).
T o the question as to the bearing of the conclusions
of criticism upon our knowledge of the life and activity
life of Paul, the answer must frankly be
41.
that in the first instance the result is of
and work : a purely negative character. In truth,
negative
this is common to all the results of
results. criticism when seriously applied. Criti-
cism must always begin by pulling down everything that
has no solid or enduring foundation.
Thus all the representations formerly current-alike
in Roman Catholic and Protestant circles-particularly
during the nineteenth century-regarding the life and
work of Paul the apostle of Jesus Christ, of the Lord,
of the Gentiles, must be set aside, in so far as they rest
upon the illusory belief that we can implicitly rely on
what we read in Acts and the 13 (14)epistles of Paul.
or in the epistles alone whether in their entirety or in a
restricted group of them. These representations are
very many and-let it be added in passing-very
various and discrepant in character : far from showing
any resemblance to one another, they exhibit the most
inconsistent proportions and features. But, however
different they were, they all of them have disappeared ;
they rested upon a foundation not of solid rock, but of
shifting sand.
So, too, with all those surveys of Panlinism, the
' ideas,' the ' theology,' the system' of Paul, set forth
in accordance with the voice of tradition, as derived
from a careful study of the contents of Acts and the
epistles, whether taken in their entirety or curtailed or
limited to the a principal epistles ' alone. Irrevocably
passed away, never more to be employed for their
original purpose, are such sketches, whether on a large
or on a smaller scale, whether large or narrow in their
scope, sketches among which are many highly important
studies, especially within the last fifty years. Hence-
forward, they possess only a historical interest as
examples of the scientific work of an older school.
They do not and could not give any faithful image or
just account of the life and teaching of Paul, the right
foundation being wanting.
This, however, does not mean, as some would have
us believe, that the later criticism has driven history
from the lists, banished Paul from the world of realities,
and robbed us even of the scanty light which a somewhat
older criticism had allowed us, to drive away the darkness
as to the past of early Christianity. These are impos-
sibilities. No serious critic has ever attempted them or
sought to obscure any light that really shone. T h e
question was and is simply this : what is it that can be
truly called history? Where does the light shine? To
see that one has been mistaken in one's manner of
apprehending the past is not a loss but a gain. I t is
always better, safer, and more profitable, to know that
one does not know, than to go on building on a basis
that is imaginary.
The results of criticism, even of the most relentless
3630
 PAUL
criticism, thus appear to be after all not purely negative.
41. Positive Though at first sight they may, and
indeed must, seem to be negative, they
Po:zikns.are not less positive in contents and
tendency. The ultimate task of criticism
is to build up, to diffuse light, to bring to men's know-
ledge the things that have really happened. As regards
Paul's life and work, now that the foundations have
been changed, it teaches us in many respects to judge
in another sense than we have been accustomed to do.
Far from banishing his personality beyond the pale of
history, criticism seeks to place him and his labours in
the juster light of a better knowledge. For this it is un-
able any longer in all simplicity to hold by the canonical
Acts and epistles, or even to the epistles solely, or yet to a
selection of them. The conclusion it has to reckon w-ith
is this :-(u) That we possess no epistles of Paul ; that
the writings which bear his name are pseudepigrapha
containing seemingly historical data from the life and
labours of the apostle, which nevertheless must not be
accepted as correct without closer examination, and are
probably, a t least for the most part, borrowed from
' Acts of Paul ' which also underlie our canonical book
of Acts (see above, 5 37). (6) Still less does the Acts of
the Apostles give us, however incompletely, a n absolutely
historical narrative of Paul's career ; what it gives is a
variety of narratives concerning him, differing in their
dates and also in respect of the influences under which
they were written. Historical criticism must, as far as
lies in its power, learn to estimate the value of what has
come down to us through both channels, Acts and the
epistles, to compare them, to arrange them and bring
them into consistent and orderly connection. On these
conditions and with the help of these materials, the
attempt may be made to frame some living conception
of the life and work of the apostle, and of the manner
in which the figure of the apostle was repeatedly re-
cast in forms which superseded one another in rapid
succession.
Towards this important work little more than first
essays have hitherto been made. T h e harvest promises
to be plentiful; but the labourers as yet are too few.
W e must, for the time being, content ourselves with
indicating briefly what seem to be the main conclusions.
Paul was the somewhat younger contemporary of
Peter and other disciples of Jesus, and probably a Jew
43, The his- by birth, a native of Tarsus in Cilicia.
torical Paul. At first his attitude towards the dis-
ciples was one of hostility. Later,
originally a tentmaker by calling, he cast in his lot with
the followers of Jesus, and, in the service of the higher
truth revealed through them, spent the remainder of a
life of vicissitude as a wandering preacher. In the
course of his travels he visited various lands : Syria, Asia
Minor, Greece, Italy. Tradition adds to the list a
journey to Spain, then back to the East again, and once
more westwards till a t last his career ended in martyr-
dom a t Rome. With regard to his journeys, we can in
strictness speak with reasonable certainty and with some
detail only of one great journey which he undertook
towards the end of his life : from Troas to Philippi, back
to Troas, Assos, Mitylene, Samos, Miletus, Rhodes,
Patara, Tyre, Ptolemais, Czesarea, Jerusalem, back to
Czsarea, Sidon, Myra, Fair Havens, Melita, Syracuse,
Rhegium, Puteoli, Rome {Acts 1610-17 205-15 21 1-18
27 1-26 16).
Perhaps at an earlier date he had been one of the
first who, along with others of Cyprus and Cyrene,
proclaimed to Jews and Gentiles outside of Palestine
the principles and the hopes of the disciples of Jesus
(Acts 11 19 f: ). Possibly, indeed probably, we may
infer further details of the same sort from what Lk. and
the authors of the epistles have borrowed from the
'Acts of Paul,' as to the places visited by Paul, and the
measure of his success in each ; in which of them he
met with opposition, in which with indifference ; what
3631
PAUL
particular discouragements and adventures he en-
countered ; such facts as that he seldom or never came
into contact with the disciples in Palestine ; that even
after years had passed he was still practically a stranger
to the brethren dwelling in Jerusalem ; that on a visit
there he but narrowly escaped suffering the penalty
of death on a charge of contempt for the temple,
which would show in how bad odour he had long been
with many.
As regards all these details, however, we have no
certain knowledge. The Acts of Paul, so far as known
to us, already contained both truth and fiction. In no
case did it claim to give in any sense a complete account
of the doings and sufferings of the apostle in the years of
his preaching activity. T h e principal source which
underlies it, the journey narrative, the so-called ' W e -
source,' is exceedingly scanty in its information. It
says not much more, apart from what has been already
indicated about the great Troas-Philippi-Troas-Rome
journey, than that Paul, sometimes alone, sometimes in
company with others, visited manyregions, and preached
in all of then] for a t least some days, in some cases for
a longer period.
It does not appear that Paul's ideas differed widely
from those of the other 'disciples,' or that he had
emancipated himself from Judaism or had outgrown
the law more than they. Rather do one or two
expressions of the writer of the journey-narrative tend
to justify the supposition that, in his circle, there
was as yet no idea of any breach with Judaism. At any
rate, the writer gives his dates by the Jewish calendar
and speaks of ' the days of unleavened bread ' ( L e . , after
the passover), Acts 206, and of ' the fast ' (ie., the great
day of atonement in the end of September), 279. H e
is a disciple ' among the ' disciples.' What he preaches
is substantially nothing else than what their mind and
heart are full of, ' the things concerning Jesus ' (T& ?rep1
roc 'IyuoO). It may be that Paul's journeyings, his
protracted sojourn outside of Palestine, his intercourse
in foreign parts with converted Jews and former heathen,
may have emancipated him (as it did so many other
Jews of the dispersion), without his knowing it, more or
less-perhaps in essence completely-from circumcision
and other Jewish religious duties, customs, and rites.
But even so he had not broken with these. H e had, like
all the other disciples, remained in his own consciousness
a Jew, a faithful attender of temple or synagogue, only
in this one thing distinguished from the children of
Abraham, that he held and preached 'the things con-
cerning Jesus,' and in connection with this devoted
himself specially to a strict life and the promotion of
mutual love. What afterwards became Paulinism.'
' the theology of Paul,' w-as not yet. Still less does it
ever transpire that Paul was a writer of epistles of any
importance; least of all, of epistles so extensive and
weighty as those now met with in the Canon. So also
there is no word, nor any trace, of any essential difference
as regards faith and life between him and other disciples.
He is and remains their spiritual kinsman ; their
'brother,' although moving in freedom and living for
the most part in another circle.
For doubting, as is done by E. Johnson, the formerly
anonymous writer of Antigua Muter (1687), the
historical existence of Paul and his activity as a n
itinerant preacher outside the limits of Palestine, there
is no reason. Such doubt has no support in any ancient
rlocument, nor in anything in the journey-narrative that,
In itself considered, ought to be regarded as improbable ;
3n the other hand, it is sufficiently refuted by the
miversality of the tradition among all parties regarding
Paul's life and work (cp Van Manen, P u u b s , 1192-200).
It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later
.imes differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from
he original. Legend has made itself master of his
xrson. The simple truth has been mixed up with
nvention ; Paul has become the hero of a n admiring band
3632
 PAUL
of the more highly developed Christians ; the centre,
44 The at the same time, of a great movement in
leg;ndary the line of the development of the faith
and expectations of the first disciples ; the
Paul. father of Paulinism -that system which,
a t first wholly unnoticed by the majority, or treated
with scorn and contempt (cp 5 4, n. z), soon met with
general appreciation, and finally found world-wide fanie,
however at all times imperfectly understood.
It is difficult, or almost impossible, to indicate with
distinctness how far Paul himself, by his personal influ-
ence and testimony, gave occasiou for the formation of
that which afterwards came to be associated with his
name, and which thenceforward for centuries-indeed
inseparably for all time, it might seem-has continued
to be so conjoined, though very probably, if not cer-
tainly, it had another origin. W e find ourselves here
confronted with a qnestion involving a problem similar
to that relating to the connection between John, origin-
ally a simple fisherman of Galilee, one of the first dis-
ciples of Jesus, and John the Divine, the father of the
illustrious Johannine school which speaks to us in the
Fourth Gospel and in the three epistles bearing his
name.
The following seems certain : Paul, of whom so little
in detail is known, the artisan-preacher, who travelled
46. In Acta of so widely for the advancement and
diffusion of those principles which,
once he had embraced them, he held
so dear, was portrayed in a no longer extant work
which can most suitably be named after him Acts of
Paul, based partly on legend, partly on a trustworthy
tradition to which the well-known journey-narrative may
be reckoned. There he comes before us, now enveloped
in clouds and now standing out in clear light ; now a
man among men, and now a n ideal figure who is
admired but not understood. At once the younger
contemporary of the first disciples, and yet as it seems
already reverentially placed at a distance apart from
them ; a ‘disciple’ like them, yet exercising his im-
mediate activity far outside their circle ; full of quite
other thoughts ; in a special sense guided by the Holy
Spirit ; a ‘Christian’ who bows the knee before the
Son of God and is entrusted with ‘ t h e gospel of the
grace of God’ (Acts.2024) ; in the main, perhaps, so
far as his wanderings and outward fortunes are con-
cerned, drawn from the life, yet at the same time, even
in that case, in such a manner that the reader a t every
point is conscious of inaccuracy and exaggeration, and
finds himself compelled to withhold his assent where he
comes across what is manifestly legendary.
So in the story of Paul’s conversion, his seeing of Jesus in
heaven his heariug of Jesus’ voice his receiving of a mandate
from h h (Acts2221 2616.18); th; word to Ananias that he
is to be instructed by Jesus himself and filled with the Holy
Ghost (9 16-17); the representation of Paul as receiving visions
and revelations (2217.~1 lti9.f. lS9f: 2723); the record of
how he was wont to bo led by the Holy Spirit (134 1 6 6 6
19 21 20 2 2 21 4 10-12) ; the description of his controversy with
Elymas Barjesus, whom he vanquishes and punishes with
blindness (186-12); the healing of the lame man at Lystra
and the deification that followed (148-1s); the vision of the
man of Macedonia at Troas (16 9 ) ; the casting out of the evil
spirit at Philippi (16 16-18); the liberation from rison at the
same place (16~5-34);the imparting of the Hoyy Ghast to
disciples of the old school at Ephesus by the laying on of hands
(19 1 . 7 ) ; the cures there wrought and castings out of evil spirits
( 1 9 1 1 x ) ; the vengeance of the evil spirit who recognises
indeed the superiority of Paul, hut not that of other men (19 16) ;
the giving up and burning of precious books at Ephesus (19 rg);
perhaps also the affair of Eutychus at Troas (20 7-12), and the
details respecting Paul’s sojourn at Melita (‘28 I-Io)).~
W e are here already a good distance along the road
upon which a younger generation, full of admiration
for its great men, yet not too historically accurate, is
moving, setting itself to describe the lives of Peter,
Paul, Thomas, John, and others, in the so-called
apocryphal Acts, or, more particularly (Gnostic), cir-
cuits ’ ( I k p i o 8 o r ) .
1 For a fuller list see Van Manen, Pawlus, 1176.192.
3633
PAUL
Lk. also moves in the same direction, but with this
difference, that his Paul (see Van Manen, Puulus,
1164-169),under the influence of the current in which
his spiritual life is lived, stands nearer again to Peter,
yet in such a manner that it is still more impossible to
present before one’s mind a n image of anything recorded
of him among the often discrepant and mutually con-
flicting details, not a few of which a r e manifestly
incorrect (id., Lc. 169.176).
T h e writer of the Acts of Paul never shows any
acquaintance with epistles of Paul, however much one
might expect the opposite when his way of thinking
is taken into account. On the contrary, the ‘ historical
details‘ in the epistles, or at least a good part of
them, appear themselves t o be taken from the Acts
of Paul, since they are not always in agreement with
what Lk. relates in his second book, although they
are manifestly speaking of the same things. Lk. must
have modified, rearranged, supplemented, perhaps also
in some cases more accurately preserved, what he
and the writers of the epistles had read in the book
consulted by them, a work lost to us, or, if you will,
surviving in a kind of second edition as the Acts of
the Apostles. In this lost Acts of Paul, Paul had be-
come (in contrast to what, even by the admission of
the journey-narrative, h e really was) the hero of a re-
forming movement, the exponent of wholly new prin-
ciples in the circle of those who wrought for the
emancipation of Christianity from the bonds of Judaism
and its development into a universal religion.
Where that circle, under the patronage of ‘Paul,’
must be looked for cannot be said with certaintv.
46. Home of Probably it was in Syria, more particu-
larly in Antioch ; yet it may have been
Paulinism. somewhere in Asia Minor. W e mav
be practically certain, at all events, that it was not in
Palestine ; it was in a n environment where no obstruc-
tion was in the first instance encountered from the Jews
or, perhaps still worse, from the ‘ disciples ’ too closely
resembling them ; where men as friends of gnosis, of
speculation, and of mysticism, probably under the
influence of Greek and, more especially, Alexandrian
philosophy, had learned to cease to regard themselves
as bound by tradition, and felt themselves free to extend
their flight in every direction. To avail ourselves of a
somewhat later expression : it was among the heretics.
The epistles first came to be placed on the list among
the gnostics. T h e oldest witnesses to their existence, as
Meyer and other critics with a somewhat wonderful
unaniniity have been declaring for more than half a
century, are Basilides, Valentinus. Heracleon. Marcion
is the first in whom, as we learn from Tertnllian, traces
are to he found of a n authoritative group of epistles of
Paul. ‘Tertullian still calls him ‘ haereticoruni apostolus’
( a h . M ~ Y35) c . and (addressing Marcion) ‘ apostolus
vester ’ (1I S ) .
Whencesoever coming, however, the Paulinism of the
lost Acts of Paul and of our best authoritv for that way of
*,. thinking, our canonical epistles- of
Paulinism Paul, is not the ‘theology,’ the ‘sys-
characteristic tem ’ of the historical Paul, although
Of
it ultimatelv came to be. and in most
quarters still is, identified ’with it. I t is the later
development of a school, or, if the expression is pre-
ferred, of a circle, of progressive believers who named
themselves after Paul and placed themselves as it were
under his regis. T h e epistles explain this movement
from different sides. apart from what some of them,
by incorporating and working u p older materials,
tell us in addition as to its historical development and
the varying contents of its doctrines.
i. Romans with its account of what the gospel, regarded as a
religious dockine is (118-11 36), and of what those who profess
it are exhorted td (12-15 13), throws a striking light upon what
1 CP840.
3634
 PAUL
Paulinism is, both dogmaticallyand ethically, for the Christian
faith and life.
ii. I Cor. shows in a special way how deeply and in what sense
Paulinism has at heart the practice of the Christian life, as
regards for example partkcand disputes within the chirch
(1 10-3 ;3), the valid Luthority in it (4), purity of morals ( 5 andabout the year 210, brings it against the Montanist
6 I ~ - z o ) the
, judging of matters of dispute between Christians
(61.11), their mutual relations, such as those of the circum- Themiso as a particularly serious charge that some
cised and the uncircumcised, of bondmen and freemen (7 18-24).
the married and the unmarried life (8-11 I), the veiling of womei
(11 2-15 [16]), the love feasts (11 17-34), spiritual gifts (12-14), and
the collection for the saints (161-4), along with which only
one suhiect of a more doctrinal nature is treated : the resur-
rection (15).
iii. 2 Cor. gives above all else the impression how the person
and work of ' Paul ' in the circle addressed, or, rather, tbrough-
out the Christian world, had to be defended and glorified
(1 :3
: 16 10-13 IO); and, in a passage introduced between its two
main portions, how the manifestation of mutual love, by the
gathering of collections for the saints, must not he neglected
"G.'. Gal. gives us an earnest argument on behalf of 'Paul' and
the view of Christianity set forth by him, particularly his
doctrine of justification by faith, not by the works of the law ; able witnesses for the life and activities, especially the
as also for the necessity for a complete breach with Judaism.
V. In Eph: it is the. edification of ' Pauline' Christians that Christian thoughts and feelings, of the historical Paul,
comes most into prominence. So also in Phil., although here
we have also a bitter attack on the apostle's enemies, and, in
close connection with this, a glorification of his person and work
(3 1-4I). In Col., along with edification and exhortation, the
doctrinal hienificance of Christ is exoatiated umn (1 12-m
2 11-15); also that of ' Panl ' (1 23-2 5) : ind an eadest war<ing
is given against doctrinal errors @6-23).
vi. In I and 2 Thess., respectively, the condition of those who
have fallen asleep ( I Thess. 4 13-18) and the exact time of the
parousia ( 5 1-11) on the one hand, and the things which may yet
have to precede that event (.Thess. 2 1-12), on the other, are
discussed.
vii. The Pastoral Epistles occupy themselves chiefly with the
various affairs of the churches within ' Pauline' circles ; Phile- not hearing his name.
mon with the relations which ought to subsist between slaves
and their masters in the same circles.
Here we have variety enough, and many historical
traits which, once arranged in proper order, can supply
us with a conception of what 'Paul,' through all the
vicissitudes of earnest opposition and equally earnest
support among Christians, finally became-first in
narrower, anon in wider circles, and a t last in the
whole catholic world-the apostle ( b 'A~~~uToXOE),
equal of Peter, or, strictly speaking, his superior.
the
At the outset we find ' Paul' standing outside the
circle of the Catholic church just coming
- into being,
48. History of but held in honour by Marcion and
Paulinism. his followers. Already, however, Lk.,
in virtue of the right he exercises of
curtailing, expanding, modifying aught that may not
suit his purpose in the material he has derived from
other sources, has in Acts given ' Paul' a position of
pre-eminence. Older fragments, whether of the nature
of ' acts ' o r of the nature of ' epistles,' that had passed
into circulation under Paul's name were, in whole or in
part, taken u p into writings on a larger scale, a n d
remodelled into what are now our canonical ' Epistles of
Paul.' A Justin can still, it would seem, pass him over,
although spiritually Justin stands very close to Paul
and shows acquaintance with him. Ircnaeus in his turn
has n o difficulty in using the Pauline group of Epistles,
at least twelve of the thirteen-Philemon is not spoken
of, nor is there as yet any word of Hebrews-as
canonical, although not from predilection for their
contents, but simply because h e wishes to vanquish his
great enemies, the gnostics, with their own weapons.
'l'hat in doing so h e frequently had failed to understand
' Paul' is clearly manifest (see Werner, Der Puulinis-
mus des Ireneus, 1889). Tertullian advances along
the path opened by Irenzus. Without really having
much heart for the Paul of the Pauline Epistles, he
brings out the 'apostle of the heretics' against the
heretics, though, as regards 'history,' he holds t o the
older view that Christianity owed its diffusion among
the nations to the activity of the Twelve. I n association
with these in their solitary greatness no one deserves
for a moment to be mentioned, not even the historical
Paul, unless, indeed, as their somewhat younger con-
temporary, ' posterior apostolus,' who niight be regarded
3635
PAUL
as having sat a t their feet (odv. Marc. 4.2 5 2 : see van
Manen, Puulus, 2 262-276). In the so-called Muratorian
Canon, among the authoritative writings of the N T ,
thirteen epistles of Paul are enumerated. Apollonius,
forty years previously he had ventured to write an
epistle in imitation of the apostle (pipohp~.~uosT ~ V
'A7rb~oXov; i e . , Paul ; Eus. H E v . 185). I n truth,
from that time onwards, in orthodox circles no one
doubted any longer the high authority of ' Paul ' the
assumed writer of the thirteen (fourteen) epistles. I t
was only with regard to Hebrews that a few continued
t o hesitate for some time longer.
For our knowledge of Paulinism the thirteen epistles
are of inestimable value. They are, when thus regarded,
no less important than they were when they were con-
sidered-all of them, or some of them-as nnimpeach-
the only slightly younger contemporary of Peter and
other original disciples of Jesus.
In a complete study of Paulinism there come into
consideration also Heb. I Pet. Ja. and
49. other writings which breathe more or less
I Pauline the same spirit, or, as the case may be,
Epistles. take a polemical attitude towards it.
i. Hebrews as being the expression of an interesting variation
from the oldk Paulinism ; a doctrinal treatise, rich in earnest
exhortations, given forth as a 'word of exhortation' (hdyos 6 s
rraparA,jmws, 1322) in the form of an Epistle of Paul, though
ii. I Pet. as being a remarkable evidence of attachment to
'Paul'amdng people who know t h a t the group of letters as-
sociated with his name is closed, although they desire to hear
witness in his spirit ; in point of fact, a letter of consolation
written for those who stand exposed to persecution and
suffering.
iii. James, as an instance of seriously-meant imitation of a
Pauline epistle, written by some one who had misunderstood
and was seeking to controvert Paul's view of the connection
between faith and works (2 14-26).
~~.
-
O n the other hand. there is a ereat deal that must be
Apocrgrphal regarded as the product of a later
Epistles, Acte, time, and, however closely associated
^*^ with the name of Paul, as lying beyond
I IUG.
the scope of the present article.
i. (u) Epistle to the Laodiceans.-Antiquity knew of
such a n epistle, alongside of ( b ) the epistle ad Alex-
andrinos, mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (63-65)
with the words added ' Pauli nomine fictz ad haeresem
Marcionis,' ' feigned in the name of Paul t o the use of
the heresy of Marcion.' This epistle to the Laodiceans.
mentioned also in Jerome ( V i r . ZZZ. 5 , and elsewhere) was
very probably our Epistle of Paul t o the Ephesians,
just as that to the Alexandrians was probably our
Epistle to the Hebrews, or, it may be, a Marcionite
redaction of it.
( c ) Another Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans OCCUTS in
many Latin MSS of the NT, and in old printed editions of the
N T ; in Luther's Bible, Worms, 152,; in the Dutch of 1560
by L.D.K.-probably Leendert der inderen . in 1600,after a
copy by Nicolaus Biestkens van Diest ; in ;6r4 Dordrecht
Isaack Jansz. Canin : and in English, cp Harnack, ACL l(1893j
33.37. , See, further, Anger, Ueber den Laodicencrbrkf (1843)~
and Lightf. Colossians, 274, who also gives a convenient sum-
mary of the views which have ' been held respecting this letter:
(Hatch). The writing is composed of NT words of 'Paul
prpbably to meet the demand for an epistle to the Laodiceads
raised by Col. 4 16, and actually dating from the fifth, perhaps
even from the fourth century.
ii. An Epistlefrom the Con'nthians to PauZ and the
apostle's answer ( = 3 Cor. ) which is brought into con-
nection with theepistle named in I Cor. 59, were included
in the Syrian Bible in the days of Aphraates and Ephraim,
and centuries afterwards were still found in that of the
Armenians.
They occur also in a MS of the Latin Bible dating from the
fifteenth century and have been repeatedly printed, the best
edition being that of Aucher (AmmianandEngZishGrammar,
1819 p. 183). 'An English translation will be found in Stanley,
Epistles of St. P a d t o the Corinthians, 593'(Hatch). There
are German and French translations in Riuck (1823)and Berger
3636
 PAUL
(1891). They appear to belong to the third century and are
conjectured to have been written against the Bardesanites,
originally in Greek or Syriac, perhaps as portions of the A c t a
Pauli. Cp Harnack, ACL 137-39 ; Kriiger, ACL, 1895, p. I I ;
Xachtriigc, 1897, p. 10 ; also Sanday, above, C ORINTHIANS , $8
19, 206.
iii. Fourteen epistles of Paul and Seneca are given in
a number of later MSS ; first named and cited by Jerome,
VT 12, although hardly by that time read by very
many.
T h e correspondence is reproduced in most editions of Seneca
-e.g., ed. Haase, 1878, vol. 1%. 476-q81--anddiscussed by(among
others) Funk, ‘ Der Briefwechsel des Paulus mit Seneca,’ 31eol.
Quartalschr., 1867,.p. 6 0 2 ; Lightf. Phili#pian&, 327 ; Kreyher,
Seneca u.seine Beziehungen zum Christcnthum, 1887 ; Harnack,
A C L 1 763-765. Their ‘genuineness’ is not for a moment to be
thought of.
iv. Other special writings of a later date relating to
Paul are found (apart from the Ebionite Acts of the
Apostles already alluded to, mentioned by Epiphnnius,
Hner. 30 16, and the Acta P a u l i = IIaliXou rpd&is [also
lost] mentioned by Origen, perhaps identical with the
work called P a u l i Prczdicatio in Pseudo-Cyprian) in the
Acts of Peter and P a u l ; the Acts of P a u l and Thpcla;
the Apoca&pse of P a u l ; ’ A v a , R a ~ r ~ IIaliXou
bv mentioned
in Epiphanius (see 2 Cor. 124 ; cp PREP) 1670).
T h e Acts of Peter and Paul, as also those of Paul and Thecla, ‘ proconsul’ ( R V ; ANeynAToc) of Cyprus at the time
are printed in Tischendorf (Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha denuo of Paul‘s visit, about 47 A . D . (Acts 1373.). S ~ ~ C Y P R U S .
ediderunt R. A. Lipsius et M. Bonnet 1 189r ; c p APOCKYI.HA,
5 23, 2 ) ; the Revelation of Paul in h k h e n d o r f (Apocabpses 5 4.
A#ocry#h.~). [References to the literature of the Apocalypse
of Paul in Lat. Syr. Gk. and Ar. will be found in Catalope
of Syr. MSS Liniuevs. o j C a m 6 . (r90r). p. 1 1 6 ~ f : ET of all OT to translate
three by A. Walker, The Apocryjhal Gospels, Acts, and
Rerdations, (1870). ]
’The best and most exhaustive discussion of the con-
tents of these writings, alike with regard to Paul’s life
and activity, and with regard to his relation to Peter
and other disciples of Jesus, though too exclusively
under the influence of the Tiibingen construction of
history (see van Manen, Th. T , 1888. pp. ~ ~ - I o Iis) ,
given by R. A. Lipsius in his standard work-Die
apohryphen Apostelgrschichten u. Apostel/e&??enden. I 883-
1890 (reviewed in Th. T , 1883, pp. 377-393; 1884,
pp. 598-611 ; 1888, pp. 93-108 ; 1891. pp. 450-451).
with which cp also the ProZegomcne to the second
edition of the Acta I , 1891, and PREi3J1664-666.
‘ T h e literature which hears upon St. Paul is so extensive that
a complete account of i t would be as much beyond the compass
of t h L 5 article as i t would be bewildering to
61. Literature. its readers. So, rightly, Hatch at the close
of his article ‘ P a u l ’ in Ency. Bn’f.(*J,1885.
i. For the Zryeof Paul Hatch cited A. Neander, Ppanzung, etc.
vol. i.W, 1847, ET in Bohn’s Standard Library and N e w York:
1889 ; F. C. Baur, Paulus der Apostcljesu Ckristi, 1845, 1866-
r867PJ, ET 1875-1876; E. Renan, Les A#dfres, 1866, and
Saint Paul, 1869; Krenkel, P a u h s d e r Apostel der Heiden,
:8@; A. Hausrath, Der Aporfel Paulus, 1872PJ, and art.
Paulus’ in Schenkel’s 6 L : J. W. Straatman, Paulus de Apostel
van / e m s Christrrs (1874); Reyschlag in Riehm’s H W B ; W,
Schmidt in PREP) ; Conybeare and Howson, Lzye and E$#. of
St. Paul, 18jr (and 0ften);F.F. W. Farrar, Lz+e and Work of
Si.Paul: Lewin, Lifp andEpp. of S f .P a d ; [W. M. Ramsay,
St. Paul fhe Tyaueller and Roman Citizen, 18961.
ii. With regard to the theology of Paul, in addition to several
of the works already named : Usteri, Die E n h i c k . des paulin.
Lrhr6epysCs. 1824, r851@); Dahne’s hook with the same title,
1835 ; A. Ritschl, Die Enfsfeh. deer altkafhol. Kirchep), 185 ,
E. Reuss, Hisf. de la ihPol. chr6tienne at‘ siPcle a$osfolrque(J);
1864 ; the essays appended to Jowett’s Epistles of St. Paul to
fhe Thess., GaL, and Ronr.(2), 1859 ; C. Holsten, Zum Evang.
des Paulus u. Pefrus 1868 arid Das Evang. des Paulus 1
1880 [2 18981’ 0. Pfleiherer,’Der Pawlinismus, 1873, ET 18;7 f
Sahatdr, L’a>dtrt Paul(z), 1881 ; Menegoz, Le Ptchl et la RC
dernptiond’aprPs S. Paul, 1882; Ernesti, DieEthikdcs A&wtCls
Paulus, 18643).
To these may be added C. C. Everett, The GospeZ of Paul,
1893, and a number of other studies in hooks and periodicals ;
general works on Old Christianity, such as [W. R. Cassels]
Su#ernafural ReZ&io@), 3 VOIS.1875-1877; R. J. Knowling
The Witness ojfhcEpistles, 1892 ; C. Weizsicker, Das Afiostoi
ische ZeitalfetC), 1892, ET ‘894-1895 ; J. B. Lightfoot, Diker-
fations on fhe Apostolic Age, 1892 ; F. J. A. Hort, jirdaistic
Christianity, 1898, and The Christian Ecclesin, 1898 ; 0. Cone
P a u l : the Man, the Missionary, and fhe Teacher, 1898; th;
various works on New Testament Introduction, such as those of
Credner (1836); Reuss 1874(4). ET 1884 ; Bleek-Mangold
1886(4); Hilgenfeld, 187; : B. We& 157(3); ET, 1880, 1889(2)f
G. Salmon, 1896(7); S. Davidson 1894(3). H. Holtzmann
I@@); W. Briickner, 1890 ; A. jiilicher,’qor$j; Th. Zahn:
3637
PAVEMENT
xgco(2); the commentaries on Acts and the Pauline Epistles,
such as those in the later editions o f Meyer, in the Hand-Corn-
mentarzurn NT(12)1 8 9 9 3 ; ‘ Acts’ in (3) ~ g o i )or
, in the Interna-
tional Critical Commentary (in which Romans [1895], Ephesians
and Colossians [1897], Philippians and Philemon [ 18971, have
alreadya peared); C. J. Ellicott, Cm?. and Ezeget. Comm. on
St. Paul! EpisfZes [except Rom. and z Cor.], 1889.1890, etc.
and cp the bibliographies in ACTS and the separate articles 0;
the several epistles in this work. For advanced criticism see
further the discussions already referred to(% 34) by Bruno Bauer,
Pierson, Naber, Loman, Steck, Vlilter. and van Manen.
T h e student who wishes further information upon the Pauline
literature of recent years is recommended to consult the sections
‘ Apostelgeschichte und apostolisches Zeitalter ’ and ‘ Paulus‘
under the heading ‘Literature of the New Testament’ in the
Theologisrhes jahres6ericht (vol. xix., edited by Holtzmann
and Krijger, was published in 1900), which regnlarly, for the
last nineteen years, has given a survey of the principal puhlica-
tions-mainly German. but not to the exclusion of foreign works
-of the preceding year. A selection of the most recent literature
relating to Paul, which is to he from time t o time revised and
supplemented, will be found in a list of the ‘best hooks for
general New Testament study a t the present time’ in TheBibli-
cnl World, July ,900, pp. 53-80. C p ‘Theological and Semitic
Literature’ for the year 1900, a Supplement to the Ameriran
fournal of Theo(ogy, April 1 9 1 , especially the N T and T h e
First Three Centuries, pp. 35-49.
E. H . , $5 4-32 ; W. C. V. M., 1-3, 33-51.
PAULUS, LUCIUS SERGIUS, ‘deputy’ (AV) or
PAVEMENT. T h e word is used occasionally in
iley?,
rispah (,,/TU>. Ass. rarripu.
I to join together’ ; cp Ar. rarafa. ‘ t o
put together stones’ in building), 2 Ch.
7 3 Ezek. 4 0 1 7 8 4 2 3 Esth. 1 6 .
I n 2 K. 16 17 occurs the compound phrase D*>-JK n3xyn (cp
Syr. mippht‘i d k@hd in Jn. 19 13 for h ~ 8 6 u r p o m v; ) in Jer.
439 R V w . gives ‘ pavement ’ for is$?, h u t R V has ‘ hrick-
war?' and AV translates the word here as elsewhere ‘hrick-
kiln ; see B RICK .
6 has in Ezek. 40171: 42 3 ~b n r p b r v h o v , in 2 K. 16 17 @Lurv
h r 8 i y v . and in 2 Ch. 7 3 Esth. 1 6 and Cant. 3 IO (in the last
passage for 7&!$ hreiorpwrov. For Esth. 1 6 , see M ARBLE , a n d
for Cant. 3 IO, L ITTER.
The word X L B ~ U T ~ W ~ Ooccurs
V once in N T , in a
passage peculiar to the fourth gospel (Jn. 1913). The
-~
writer tells us that after I’ilate had
2.
questioned Jesus in the PRJETORIUM
Tq.v.1 (Jn. 1828), he led him outside and sat (or set him ? ;
see Blass, Gramm. of N T , 54. cp Justin, ApoZ. 1 3 5 )
upon the bema in a place called lithostroton, but in
Hebrew GABRaTHA ’ (6;s 76aov hqbpevov AtB6urpw~ov
~ p ae rappaoa).
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
Tatian (Diatess. 5 136) uses the same words; OS18987
Pa&%& hr&srporov, 20262 r. hrO6urporos ; Vg. Lifhosfrotos
, . . Gnbbafha: Pesh. r i s @ h t i d k2#hl . .
. gephi#htZ,
‘pavement of stones, etc.’ 1 Delitnch (Heb. New Tesf.PJ)
renders b y 73x7.
Here X~B6urpw7ov is generally taken to mean a
‘ pavement ’ on which the b2ma was placed to give it a
suitable elevation. Borrowed from the Greeks, the
word was used by Latin authors to denote a pavement
>f natural stones or of different coloured marbles (see
Rich, Did. of GK. a n d Latin Antiqq.. J.v., ‘ Litho-
itroton ’). Such pavements were first introduced into
Rome, according to Pliny ( H N 3 6 6 4 ) . in the time of
h l l a ; in Pliny’s own day there were fragments of a
pavement dating from Sulla’s time still at Przneste.
>lass mosaics came into use later. Julius C z s a r
s even said to have carried about with him on his
military expeditions ‘ tessellata et sectilia pavimenta ’ to
le laid down, wherever he encamped, in the prztorium
Suet. V i t . Div. /uL 46) ; and we are told by Josephus
A n t . xviii. 4 6 ) that Philip the tetrarch’s tribunal ‘ on
Nhich he sat in judgment, followed him in his progress.’
Now it is thought by some scholars that Pilate. like
Jresar, had a portable pavement in the place ( 7 6 7 ~ 0 s
\tBbo~pwros) where his tribunal was set up. It is
1 C p Farrar Lzye of Christ ‘the elevated pavement of many.
:oloured marble’-in this rase a picturesque but doubtful
lescription.
3638
 PAVEMENT
difficult, however, to understand how a mere portable
pavement could have given a name to a locality.
Other commentators think that the forecourt of the
temple (BY vi. 1 8 and 32),which is known to have been
paved, is intended.l Pilate, however, can hardly have
held his inquiry on a spot consecrated by the Jews.
Nor is there much to he said in favour of the view that
the nmn a3&, the meeting-place of the great Sanhedrin,
which was half within, half without, the temple forecourt
(see Schiir. 2163,P ) Z I I )i s meant (Lightfoot, Selden).
Again, the view that the pavement intended was inlaid
on a terrace running along one side of the prztorium
does not seem to d o justice to the Greek expressions.
The author speaks of a locality. It may be presumed,
therefore, that he was thinking of some public place
‘paved-with-stones’ (cp BJii. 93. where we are told
that on the occasion of the Jewish uprising when Pilate
introduced the so-called ‘ ensigns ’ into Jerusalem, ‘ he
sat upon his tribunal in the open market-place ’) where
it was customary to place the 6Zrna.”
W e now have to consider the relation of this word
to Gabbatha. Two views of this relationshiu . . have
3‘ to be? words have been supposed
Gabbatha. to be nracticallv svnonvmous.
, - ,
But
the word Gabbatha does not seem to mean ‘ pavement ’
or the like.
) Heb. 31, ‘back,‘ ‘ elevation,’ is
An Aramaised form ( ~ n 3 1 of
unknown. Nor is it likely that nil is for ~ n n i with i some
such meaning as ‘ open space (cp Heb. na?,and see Dalman,
Worte /mu, 6). To suppose, again, that Gabbatha if it can
bear this meaning, means ‘elevated place’= ‘elevated bavement’
is equally unsatisfactory. If the word means ‘elevated place’
the correct form would be N”3 (st. emph. of a fem. NJ! from
211). so Zahn Winer. Nestle, however, points out (Hastings
D B ,Lnder ‘Ghbatha’s) that both origin and meaning of th;
word are doubtful. Winer gives as a n alternative Nnl2=N?t?P;
but this could only mean ‘hill ‘or the like.
2. The terms have been thought to be different
names of the same spot. On this view ‘ elevated place ’
might, some commentators think, mean ‘ terrace,’ the
pavement (hr8burpwrov) being set in the terrace. Rut
we have already found ‘ terrace ’ unsuitable.
Brandt translates ‘terrace,’ but explains the use of 3 3
differently. He thinks that the evangelist perhaps misunder-
stood some notice about the place where the sittings of the
college of elders were held (he quotes Sank. 1 8 4 a n d that he
has made use of it in his narrative in a false connedtion.
There is perhaps more to be said in favour of the
view of Meyer and Grimni-viz., that the different
names were chosen from different characteristics of the
place. Grimm thinks the Aramaic name ‘ was given to
the spot from its shape, the Greek name from the nature
of its pavement.’ But here again, even if the Aramaic
name means ‘ elevation,’ it is too indefinite, one would
think, to be a likely one.
Nestle is of opinion that ’ the exact form and mean-
ing’ of the word ‘ mnst be left in suspense.’
It has been suggested as the most probable solution
of the difficulty (Riehni, H W B ) that the author thought
of the proceedings as having taken place in the palace
of Herod. In this case we are to understand by
X~Odurpwrova paved, open space, either immediately in
front of the palace or at a short distance from it. But
Lk. 236-16, if historical (see, however, GOSPELS, 5 108).
hardly seems to favour this. Josephus, indeed, tells us
(BYii. 1 4 8 ) that Florus ‘ took u p his headquarters a t the
palace, and on the next day had his tribunal set before
it.’ But we have no good reasons for supposing that
1 So apparently Westcott (Comm. 272), whq(com aring Talm.
Jerus. Sunh.f: 18 d, quoted by Wiinsche) thinks 8abbatha re;
presentsGab Raitha, Nn.3 32,. ‘the ridge (back) of the House,
z.e., of the temple. Westcott ignores the difficultiesof the word,
both here and in his ‘ Introduction’(p. xii).
2 Cp Renan Vie de ]dsus, 412 ‘Pilate, averti de leur
prbsence montiau binla oil tribunal h u e enplein air l’endroit
qn’on nommait Gabfiathaou, en grec, Lithostrotos, B cause du
carrelage qui revetait le sol.’
3 The article treats fully the philological difficultiesof the
word.
3639
PEACOCKS
Pilate was so privileged; and had the author been
thinking of Herods palace he would surely have been
more explicit.
No such place as h ~ B d ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ - G is a hknown
batha
to have existed. T h e N T narrative in which the words
4. Conclusion. occur is hardly to be relied upon as a
historical source ; it consists, as Keim
has pointed out, of a series of dialogues. I t seems not
unlikely, therefore, that the place Lithostroton-Gabbatha
existed, as a definite locality, only in the mind of the
author. The writer realised that he must represent
the sentence as given, after the Roman custom, in a
public place. H e knew that such open spaces were
often paved with stones ; whence the name hiO6urpmrov.
He, or some editor, added as a Hebrew name Gabbatha.
What suggested this name it is difficult, if not im-
possible, to determine. I t may have been a purely
artificial formation, the writer himself attaching no
meaning to Or possibly the bema itself was some-
times alluded to as nm;r (Aramaised N ~ B I ) ‘, the [artificial]
hump’ (fern. from and this suggested the name
‘Gabbatha. ’ M. A. C .
PAVILION. I. ilzb, sukkah, is rendered ‘pavilion’
~~IK.~OIZI~(C~SUC 1 )C, POs .T1 H
8 r,r [ ~ ~ J = z S . 2 2 1 2
Ps.275 3120 (also Job3629, which alludes to Ps.1811
and Is. 46, RV). AV, in fact, takes nip as a synonym
of sgk, and like Milton uses ‘pavilion’ as well as ‘ taber-
nacle‘ as a choicer expression for ‘tent.’ Elsewhere
rendered ‘ booth ‘ (Jonah 4 5 and often), ‘ covert ’ (Job
3840[, ‘ h u t ’ ( I K. 2012 16 RVmg. a misread passage;
see b u c c o r e , I ) , ’ tabernacle’ or ‘ tent.’ Sre T ABER -
NACLE, TENT.
2. n q , kulbdh, Nu. 25 8 t RV. RVmg ‘alcove’
(Sp: aZcmu=Ar. al-koobbah, ‘ vaulted recess ’). T h e
antiquity of the reading is vouched for by 6 (if for cis
s+v ~ d p i v o vwe may read CIS r$v Kapdpav [cod. 15 has
urqv?jv]; so Rodiger). But what can a n ‘arched
pavilion ’ do in this narrative? Nothing indicates that
a sacred tent of Baal-Peor or anything like it is
meant.4 Kub6M mnst be a corruption due to the
neighbouring word nap. T h e true reading is clearly
nen, which is practically ‘ nuptial chamber.’ See T ENT .
T.
3. iw@, faphrir (from 2 / m w , to glitter), Jer. 43 IO+
EV. T h e word probably means the glittering hangings
of the royal canopy (G. Hoffmann, Z A T W 2 6 8 ) , and
possibly occurs again in Mic. 111 (see S HAPHIR ). See
THRONE. T. K. C.
PEACE OFFERING. See SACRIFICE.
n’gw ; T b W N E C : pavi).
ed, if an old opinion is correct,
with * apes ’ or ‘ monkeys ’ among the rarities brought
to Solomon by the * navy of Tarshish ’ ( I K. 1022 ; cp
v. II ; om. BL ; and z Ch. 921 ; om. RA, T E X E C ~[L]).
T h e rendering ‘ peacocks’ is favoured by most moderns,
1 Brandt (Euang. Gesch. 133) says it ‘ presupposes a regular
government-building,with a raised terrace, where the procurator
had a setla culltlis set up and performed the duties of his judicial
office-abuilding, which, so far as we know (and the elaborate
histories of Flavius Josephus would hardly fail us here), did not
exist.’ But if we are unable to accept his explanation of ~ n 3 i
(= ‘ terrace ’), Brandt’s words lose some of their force. On the
whole question of the value of the fourth gospel as a historical
source, see besides JOHN,(SON OF ZEBEDEE), 5 37, Oscar
Holtzmann’s recently pubbshed Leben / e m ( I or), 31 fi,and
J. Rhille, Le puutri2nre Evangile (190‘ ; for Jn. 19, especially
PP. 265.03
2 The writer would naturally wish, with no idea of deceiving
his readers, to give a certain definiteness to the narrative
especially as he was making its general form so artificial. 0;
the ancient Idea of history cp Bolingbroke, Letters on the Study
and Useof Histmy, 1-4; Tylor, AnfhropoZogy,chap. 15.
3 The forms o@& Ezek. 118, and n i q perhaps presuppose
a feminine n?!.
4 Aq. sCyoc ; Sym. rropvriou (rrvpivrov, etc.) ; Vg. lupunar:
cp AVmg.’s view of 3% in Ezek. 16 24 etc.; see H IGH PLACE,
8 6, n. 3.
3640
 PEARL
following Tg., Pesh., Vg., and the' Jewish expositors.
The philological basis of the theory, however, is very
weak.
I t is supposed that 3,n (tukki?) is derived from the Tamil
tokei, which in the old classical tongue means the peacock,
though now it generally signifies the peacocks tail (so, e g . ,
Max Miiller, Sc. o f l u n g . , 209). Of course, if Ophir is some-
where on the Indian coast, a3 Lassen supposed, a Tamil origin
gains in plausibility ; but OPHIK[ y . a . ] IS a t any rate not in
India.
It should also be noticed that 6 (except in I K . )
knows nothing of ' apes and peacocks,' and that @-irrip.
which precedes n"3n) wp, is certainly corrupt (cp
EBONY, § 2 (6), I VORY, n. 3 ) . In I K. 1011we read
of 'precious stones' as coming from Ophir. It is
therefore neither rare animals nor vessels full of
aromatic oil, etc. (Halevy ; see A PE ), that we should
expect to find mentioned in v . Z Z , but some precious
stone. If Klostermann's emendation of the corrupt
n ~ n bew accepted, we shall d o well to look out for the
name of some precious stone which might be corrupted
both into o'op and into p"jn (for these words probably
represent the m m e original). Probably (see O PHIR )
we should read iisn[il msm-i. e . , ' and the &ipindu
stone ' (written twice over in error). C p HAVILAH.
On the peacock of Ceylon (Pavo cristatus), see Tennent,
CeyZon, 1165. I n the Talmud this bird is called D:p : c p mJc,
Persian fuauus. T h e Greeks called i t ' Persian bird' (Aristoph.
Aves, 484).
2. 'Peacock' (o'nn) in Job3913, AV, should rather he
OSTRICH [ q . ~ . ] . T. K. C.
PEARL. Pearls (papyap?rai) are referred to in the
N T several times (Mt. 7 6 1 3 4 5 j : I Tim. 29 Rev. 2121),
and in a manner which shows the great value then as
now attached to them.
T h a t they were well known in OT times also may be taken
for granted, though the word @ apirac does not occur in @.
I n AV 'pearl' renders p 6 i S inaqbh 28 18; but see CRYSTAL.
I n R V m s of Job 28 18 it is suggested as a possible rendering
for pzninim; see CORAL.^ Pearl or mother-of-pearl is a t a n y
rate probahly the correct interpretation of the 17 of Esth. 16;
c p Ar. dunrm, and see MARBLE.
Pearls are formed from the inner nacreous layer of
the shell of a species of bivalved mollusc, Avicula
nurguritifera. which, although allied to the Ostreidae,
is not a true oyster. They are not produced in perfectly
healthy animals, but are, as a rule, met with where
overcrowding and the presence of parasitic worms, etc.,
have induced abnormalities. T h e inner layer of the
shell of the same mollusc is known commercially as
mother-of-pearl ; this is still an article of commerce in
Palestine, where it is frequently carved into religious
ornaments. The shells are usually obtained by divers,
and to this day the pear-fisheries of the Red Sea and
the Gulf of Persia rank amongst the most important.
Pearls of an inferior colour and size are produced by
several other species of mollusc. A. E. S.
PECULIAR TREASURE, PECULIAR PEOPLE.
T h e former is the (Latinising) rendering (in EV of O T )
of two Hebrew phrases; the latter, in AV of N T , of
two Septuagint Greek phrases. It was only to be
expected that expressions of such a n origin would
obtain a deeper significance in NT. This is not so
marked, perhaps, in the case of the phrase in I Pet. 29,
where Xabs cis rEprroivuu (AV a peculiar people,' RV
' people for God's own possession ') mainly expresses
.;he fact that the Christian body, like Israel of old, is
G o d s purchased possession -a privilege, however,
which involves moral duties-but certainly in the case
of that in Tit. 2 14. where Xabs aeproliuros ( E V as before)
is primarily, not ' a people acquired as a possession ' ( 6
.&7K77)TOP, Suidas), but ' a people fit to be God's own.'
This is in fact the explanation of Vg. ( ' acceptabilem ';
Wycliffe, ' acceptable '), which, although Bishop Ellicott
1 The Targ. reads ps]y--i.e., really 'precious stones.' In
Syr. too, the word has a n extended meaning and includes
chr):solite (cp Payne Smith, Thes., s.~.).
3641
PEDESTAL
thinks it too remote from the primary meaning, seems
fairly to express the writer's meaning. Render, there-
fore, in Tit. 214, < and (that he might) purify for himself
a people fit to be his own, zealous of good works,' and
in I Pet. 29, ' a nation devoted to God, a people owned
by him' (cp C LEAN A N D U NCLEAN , 9 I [ 6 ] ) . This
last rendering (a people owned by God) is also the most
suitable in Dt.76 142 2618. In Ex. 1 9 5 Mal. 317 1's.
135 4 render ' a prized possession ' ; i n Eccles. 2 8
' treasure ' will snffice. So also in I Ch. 293. RV of
01' needlessly retains, or even inserts, ' peculiar ' every-
where except in I Ch. 293 ; in Dt. 7 6 ' special ' takes
t h e place of ' peculiar,' and in Mal. 3 1 7 , nig., 'jewels'
becomes ' special treasure ' ( R V ' a peculiar treasure ').
T h e primary meaning of &ID (8 times in 01') is no doubt
' poqqession' (peculiunr : cp Ass. sttguZIdfe, ' henls,' Del. Ass.
H I V B 490). In 1 Ch. I.c. (6 m p i n r m o i ~ p a r ) and Eccl. I.c.
(rrprovuraufiadc 1) it denotes the private property ('privy purae ')
of a king. Elsewhere it is applied metaphorically to Israel (+ID,
Ex.19 5 Mal. 3 17 [AV, 'jewels 'I, Ps. 135 4 ; ?I? DP, Dt. 7 6 14 P
26 18; habp rrrprouuroc in Ex. and Dt. [also Ex. 23 221, cp Tit.
2 14 ; &c nrprnorqarv in Mal. ; e;c arprouaraufi6v in Ps. ; Vg.
perulium, peculiaris, except in Ps. [possesszo], and Eccl. [sir&
stuntias]).
PEDAHEL ($sfif5[see Ginsb.], 3 0 ; as if ' E l
has redeemed,' cp P E D A I A H ; @AAAHA [BAFL]), a
Naphtaiite pi-ince ; Nu. 3428t.
Lagarde (Sym. 1877, p. 107) supposes a Pedahel to have
written Ps. 25, which closes with a -supernumerary Pr-distich
(D+?$$ 319). T h e suggestion, however, might produce a n eni-
harrassing crop of similar theories elsewhere (B. Jacob, Z A T W
1 6 [r8961, p. 153, n.). On the origin of the name see PEUAHZUR.
PEDAHZUR (TIUnfB, 43; as if 'the Rock
[God] has redeemed,' but see below; @&A&ccoyp
[BAFL]). a Manassite prince ; Nu. 1 I O ( & ~ A ~ , - o y p
[B]), 220 7 5 4 59 1 0 2 3 . t all P.
T h e other names containing the divine title i ( y (ZUR)having
aroused suspicion, it is not unlikely that Pedahzur may also
be a corrupt form. T h e meaning given above is indeed plaus.
ible: but i t was natural that P, like the Chronicler should
endeavour t o suggest a possible meaning for distorted names.
If *i8*ii?( ( Z U R I S H A 1 ) U A i ) and & l I x have arisen out of Asshilri
(=Geshiiri), Pedahiur probably sprang from some S. Palestinian
or N. Arabian ethnic. Pedahzur s son is called Gamaliel which
is probably (like Gemalli and Ammiel in Nu. 13 12) on: of the
many distortions of Jerahmeel. Observe tcm that in Nu. 34 23
' Hanniel h. Ephod ' corresponds to ' GaAaliiI b. Pedahzur' in
Nu. 1 IO. 'Ephod' ( l h )is probably a corruption o f ' Rephael'
(SF??), ' Hanniel' (SN'!?) of ' Hamael' (hEn)-i.c., Jerahmeel.
Very possibly then Pedahzur, Pedahel, and Padi came out of
Sarephathi (I seems to he a n afformative). T h e Jerahmeelites
also called Zarephathites, were most probably one of the mos;
widely spread of the tribes of Canaan. see J B R A H M E E L ; c p
also PASHHUR. T. K. C.
PEDAIAH (fi:?B and q?;:Q l no. 3, perhaps [so Che.]
adapted from a n ethnic name Padi [so a king of Ekron.
temp. Hezekiah, is called], but as it stands= Yahwb
has redeemed,' see N AMES , $§ 30, 53, and P EDAHEL ).
I. 'of RUMAH,'father of Jehoiakim's mother Zebudah ( 2 K.
23 36). In z Ch. 36 5 (BRA) the name is given as Neriah (n and J
confounded), whilst @L both in K. and Ch. introduces from
2 K. 2418 Amital (Hamutal) the daughter of Jeremiah ( t e p e p o v )
of Lihnah, and @ S A substitutes J I D L A P H the daughter.of &tA
[B], or ~ie68rha[A], which perhaps co;iaes from Phadael (=
Phadaia), a variant to Jidlaph (Che.).
2. b. JKCONIAH [y.o.] ( I Ch. 3 1 8 / , 4o[h]larac [BA], Qa6ata
[L]; in v. 19 61% substitutes uahatlcqA).
3. Father of J OEL [q.a.], a Manassite ( I Ch. 2 i z o ?n:y~,
gaha6ara [Bl, $aA6rr [AI, $aso*ov [Ll).
4. b. PAROSH [q.v.](Neh. 3 25, +aSar[al IBNALI).
5. A priest (Neh. 84, gaaatap), in I Esd. 944 PHALDAIUS, RV
PHALUKUS (+ar\[a]6aror [BA], ga6amr [LI). W a s he also a
Psalmiit? Lagarde thounht so (see P EDAHEL), deducing this
from the supernumerary distich beginning with the letter $e in
Ps. 34.
6. A Benjamite (Neh. 117, $ahurn [BNI, -6. [ALI).
7. A Levite overseer (Neh. 13 13, +aSara [BKAL]).
PEDESTAL (I>), I K. 7 3 1 RV, AV B ASE. See
L AVER.
1 C p JudithlSr4[11], whete Vp. has 'universa quae Holo-
fernis peculiaria probata sunt.
3642
 PEDIAS PELETHITES
PEDIAS (nsArac [B], n a i h a i a c [AI), I E d . 934 Adaiah ; Neh. l l i z (BKIom.. @AAAAIA [KC~am~.inf~A],
RV=Ezra 1035, B EDEIAH . @ahhahioy k1). T. K. C.

PEKAH (n??, 5 50, see P EKAHIAH ; @ A K E ~
[BUQL], @AKEC [I?]). Son of Remaliah, king of
Israel (735-730 ? See C HRONOLOGY , 32, 34). perhaps
a Jerahmeelite or Gileadite (see R EMALIAH . A RGOB , 2 ) .
z K . 1 5 z j f l : . 161 5 Is.71 zCh.286t. W e hear more
than usual of the successful iisurper (originally a ~Wii' [B], +AsTrra [AI, Qahrrar [LI).
or 'high officer' under P E K A H I A H ) because he came
into collision with the kingdom of Judah (see i\H.4z, I).
A few years afterwards another revolution hurled him
from the throne. His death is referred to by Tiglath-
pileser, who, according to Schrader ( C O T 1 2 4 7 ; K B
232),claims to have killed Pekah himself. Winckler,
however, reads differently, and makes Tiglath-pileser
ascribe Pekah's death to his subjects, who probably
felt the necessity of having a ruler who was acceptable
to the Assyrian king (cp H OSEA ). See I SRAEL , 32,
and on the war with the kingdom of Judah, in which
Pekah is said to have taken part, see R EZIN .
T. K. C.
PEKAHIAH (?l:llp5, ' YahwB opens [or enlightens,
themind],' § 26, or else a clan-name=Pikhi; @ & K E C I ~ C Taking this to be a geographical name, Knobel con-
[B], @AKEI&C [A], @ A K E I ~ .[L]). son and successor
of Menahem, was murdered by Pekah (cp ARGOB.z )
after a reign of two years (737-736 B.C.) ; but BLgives
him ten years ( 2 K. 1 6 z z f l ) .
I t may be questioned whether this king does not owe his
literary existence to a misunderstanding. T h e author of Kings
made Jotham and Ahaz of Judah contemporaneous with Zech-
ariah, Shallurn, Menahem. Pekahiah, and Pekah kings of
Israel. We infer this from the circcuiatance that K. 158-31,
which relates to these five kings, is interposed between 2 K. 15 7
(accession of Jotham) and 16 I (accession of Ahaz). This allows
very short reigns for these five kings, and although the revolu-
tionary tendencies of N. Israel, produced by the swift alterna-
tions of political parties, may partly account for such short
reigns, it will be some slight gain to remove Pekahiah from the
list. as due to the error of a Jewish chronologist, who found the When we consider how often, in the O T genealogical
bold usurper Pekah sometimes referred to by the fuller name
Pekahiah. T. K. C.
PEKOD (lip? ; in Jer. ~ K A I K H C O N(BKAQ], visifu of Jerahme'el ( h n i * ) - i . e . ,
[Vg.] ; -1l.l; in E d . @AKOYK P I , KAI @oyA
PELATIAH (n;D>B. as if ' Yahwe deli.iers,' §§ 30.
53, but really an ethnic n a m e = P A ~ T r [ v . z . ] , the ; I
being probably an accretion [Che.]).
1. A descendant of Zerubhabel ; I Ch. 3 21 (+ahhrTb [B], +ah-
herra [A] QaAasrar [LI).
2. A Sibeonite captain, temp. Hezekiah ; I Ch. 4 42(Qahacrrrra
3. Signatory tn the covenant (see E ZRA i., 5 7); Neh. 10za
[231 ( g d n a lBAl +aA8cra IN"], +oAreca [N?], +aAriar ILI).
4.' b. Benaiah, ;;'princcoftlicpcuple'; Ezek. 11 I 13(+ahrrav
[BAQrI, + n a v [B* in a. 11).
Pelatiah and Jaazaniah are mentioned as belonging to a party
of twenty-five men whom Ezekiel saw (in a n ecstasy)at the door
of the gateway of the temple. 'And while I was propheiy-
ing,' says Ezekiel, ' Pelatiah hen Benaiab died. And 1 fell on
my face, and cried with a loud voice, Alas, 0 Lo:d, I'ahw5,
wilt thou make a n end of the remnant of Israel? Possibly
Ezekiel regarded this as prophetic of the lot in store for
those who resembled Pelatiah. See Davidson, Kraetzschmar,
Bertholet.
PELEG (he,@ A A ~ K[AEL] fhuleg), elder son of
E BER , brother of JOKTAN.and father of R E U ; Gen.
102s 1 1 1 6 8 ( Q ~ A A KA* in 'u. 17) I Ch. 119 z j (@ahax
[B":], @+her [BabL]) ; Lk. 335t (AV PHALEC).
nected i t with Phalga, a place situated at the confluence
of the Chaboras and the Euphrates ; f o r another sug-
gestion see Lagarde, Or. 250. The root-meaning is
commonly thought to be 'division' (cp Gen. 1025 [R,] ;
' i n his days was the [people of the] earth divided.'
j$m~) ; cp. Judg. 6 156, nib?
' tribal divisions ' ?
(Moore, Bu. ; AV ' divisions ; ' RV ' watercourses ' ) ;
cp D ISTRICT. In connection with a wider study of
the names in Gen. ]Of., however, it is doubtful whether
we can attach weight to conjectures based o n the
traditional reading Peleg.' ' Arpachshad ' is very
possibly a corruption of ' Arab-cush ' or ' Cush-grab.'
lists, old names are split into two, it is very possible
that Peleg and his s3n Re'u represent different fragments
i b = n b , and i y i = 'HI
Cp PAGIEL. T. K. C.

[A]. @ a ~ o y A[Q]; nobiles [?I. &&), a Babylonian PELET (Die, '50). I . Perhaps a secondary
district mentioned in Jer. 5021 Ezek. 2323.1. Granting Calebite clan ; c p BETH-PALET ( I Ch. 2 47 : + a k c [B], + d f T
that Merathaim should be Marrathim, S . Babylonia, [AI Q d ~ l L l ) .
2: b. AZMAVETH, one of David's warriors ; I Cb. 123 (rbJ+ahvT
we may naturally hold that Pekod. or rather Peklld, is [Bxl, + ~ M V[A],
T ST [L]). See DAVID, I 11 (0.
not a symbolic name meaning 'punishment,' but a
geographical name= Pukudu. In the Taylor cylinder PELETH (n$@;on the origin of the form see
inscription of Sennacherib, col. I , line 45 (KB2 8 4 J ) , a Z AREPHATH ).
people called the Pul:udu are mentioned with the I. A Reubenite father of On, the associate of Korah, Dathan,

Hamranu, the Hagaranu, and the Nabatu; and one
of the Egibi tablets refers to a city called Pikudu
(Pinches, K P xi. 92) which is evidently in Babylonia.
At the same time, it is not certain that the prophetic
writers meant this place. Both Jer. 50 and (partly)
Ezek.23 have probably been edited so as to refer to
peoples not originally meant (see P ROPHET , 45).
For lip the prophets may have written [n]gini, Reho-
both. See M E R A T H A I;Malso Crit. Bib. T. K. c.
PELAIAH. I. (T$, a s if 'YahwB has done a
wonder' [cp z n*Nhl, but originally a n ethnic name to be ex-
plained like P ALLU [ Q . v . ~ ; the 3 is an accretion [Che.]), a
descendant of ZerubLahel ; I Ch. 3 24 (@pa [B], + d a m [A],
+asm [Ll).
2. (ny$ +aharar [L]), a Levite, expounder of the law (see
E ZRA ii., 5 13 VI; cp i., 5 8, ii., $ 16 [SI, 0 15 [XI c); N e b . 8 7
(BNA om., +aAarar &])=I Esd.948. BrATAS, R V PHALIASderived from Peleth, and that KrEthi (original form Karti?)
(+aArac [BI, + d a s [AI, + d a m s [LI), and signatory to the
covenant (see E Z R A i., p 7): Neh. 10 IO [ i i ] (BN* om., + d r \ s r a David was descended. Peleth, according to him, is the same as
1W.a ms.Al, Qaharar [I,]).
PELALIAH (?l$>B, as if YahwB judges,' 36 ;
but this name, like Jeroboam, presumably comes from
' Jerahmeel.' cp P ELAIAH ) , a name in the genealogy of MEEL, 0 3.
and Abiram ; Nu'161 (+de9 [BAF], + a h n [LI).
2. A Jerahmeelite; I Ch. 233 (Oak0 [SI, +ahrO [AI, + d a T
[Ll). C p JEKAHMEEL, $ 3 .
PELETHITES, constantly coupled with the CHE-
RETHITES [ p . v . ] , 2 S. 8 18 and elsewhere-Le., prob-
ably. the Rehobothites (see R EHOBOTH ). T h e con-
nection of the Pelethites with the Negeb, and more
particularly with Zarephath, may be regarded as in the
highest degree probable (see Z AREPHATH ). Their true
name indeed was ' Zarephathites,' and a severe struggle
seems to have been necessary before they became David's
faithful servants.
This depends, however, on the correctness of the view (i?
itself extremely plausible ; see ZAREPHATH) that ' Pelethites
or ' Zarephathites' should be restored in place of 'Philistines,'
not only in I S. 23 I etc., 30 17, but also in 2 S 21 ~s.Li?
C p PELETH : SAUL 6 3.
Winckler ( G I 2 185) supposes that P E t h i (or rather Palti) is
and Palti are the names of the gentes of the Negeb from which
Peler in Beth-pelet (L)$zWz),a place in the far S. of Judah to-
wards Edom (Josh. 15 27). This ingenious view, however, does
not take account of all the difficult textual phenomena. Prob-
ably Pelet= Peleth=Zarephath. For another view see JERAH.
T. K. C.

1 For the origin of this term see E UNUCH . 1 On the site of Phaliga see Peters, Niggur, 1 123, 311.

3643 3644