exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/6700.html

114 lines
616 KiB
HTML
Raw Permalink Blame History

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<script src="../../js/basepath.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/nav.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainHeader.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
isbe = [];
isbe[6701]='Pardon`par\'-d\'n, par\'-dun.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FORGIVENESS">FORGIVENESS</a>`1';
isbe[6702]='Pare, (the Nails)`par (\'asah, "to fix," "manipulate"): The word, which in Hebrew has a very wide range of application, and which is of very frequent occurrence in the Hebrew Bible, is found in the above meaning in but one passage of English Versions of the Bible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,12);">De 21:12</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NAIL">NAIL</A>). In a similar sense it is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,24);">2Sa 19:24</a>, where it is used to express the dressing of the feet anti the trimming of the beard.``1';
isbe[6703]='Parent`par\'-ent.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHILDREN">CHILDREN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRIMES">CRIMES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EDUCATION">EDUCATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FAMILY">FAMILY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[6704]='Park`park (pardec; Septuagint paradeisos; compare Arabic firdaus): "I made me gardens and parks," the King James Version "orchards" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',2,5);">Ec 2:5</a>); "Asaph the keeper of the king\'s forest," the Revised Version margin "park" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,8);">Ne 2:8</a>). The same word occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,13);">So 4:13</a>, "Thy shoots are an orchard (the Revised Version margin "paradise") of pomegranates." according to Liddell and Scott, paradeisos occurs first in Xenophon, who always uses it of the parks of Persian kings and noblemen. Like many other quadriliterals the word is undoubtedly of eastern origin. It seems to connote an enclosure. It is used in Septuagint of the Garden of Eden. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,43);">Lu 23:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,4);">2Co 12:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,7);">Re 2:7</a>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PARADISE">PARADISE</a>`37';
isbe[6705]='Parlor`par\'-ler: This word in the King James Version, occurring in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,\'20-25\');">Jud 3:20-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,22);">1Sa 9:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,11);">1Ch 28:11</a>, is in every instance changed in the Revised Version: in Judges into "upper room," in 1 Samuel into "guest-chamber," in 1 Chronicles into "chambers," representing as many Hebrew words.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOUSE">HOUSE</a>`1';
isbe[6706]='Parmashta`par-mash\'-ta (parmashta\'; Septuagint Marmasima, or Marmasimna): One of the sons of Haman (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',9,9);">Es 9:9</a>).``1';
isbe[6707]='Parmenas`par\'-me-nas (Parmenas): A Greek name, an abbreviated form of Parmenides. Parmenas was one of "the seven" chosen by the people and appointed by the apostles to superintend the daily distribution to the Christian poor of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,5);">Ac 6:5</a>). Tradition states that he was martyred at Philippi, in the reign of Trajan, but his name does not appear again in Scripture.``1';
isbe[6708]='Parnach`par\'-nak (parnakh, "gifted"): Father of Elizaphan, the prince of Zebulun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,25);">Nu 34:25</a>).``1';
isbe[6709]='Parosh`pa\'-rosh, par\'-osh (par\'osh, "flea" (leap)): a family that in part returned under Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,3);">Ezr 2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,8);">Ne 7:8</a>), and in part under Ezra (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,3);">Ezr 8:3</a>; there spelt "Pharosh," the King James Version). Some of the family had foreign wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,25);">Ezr 10:25</a>). One descendant, Pedaiah (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PEDAIAH">PEDAIAH, (3)</A>), helped to rebuild the city walls (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,25);">Ne 3:25</a>), and others were among those who "sealed" the covenant of Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,1,14);">Ne 10:1,14</a>). In 1Esdras 5:9; 8:30; 9:26, "Phoros."``1';
isbe[6710]='Parousia`pa-roo<6F>-zhi-a:<P><b>I. THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE</b><P class="in15">1. Terms<P class="in15">2. Data and Sources<P class="in15">3. Consistency<P class="in15">4. Meaning of the Symbolism<P><b>II. THE TEACHING OF JESUS</b><P class="in15">1. Critical Problems<P class="in15">2. Summary<P class="in15">3. Fall of Jerusalem<P class="in15">4. Time<P><b>III. JOHN<48>S EVALUATION</b><P class="in15">1. Solution of Problem<P class="in15">2. The Church a Divine Quantity<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. The Apostolic Doctrine.<P>1. Terms:<P>The Second Coming of Christ (a phrase not found in the Bible) is expressed by the apostles in the following special terms:<P>(1) "Parousia" (parousia), a word fairly common in Greek, with the meaning "presence" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,10);">2Co 10:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,12);">Php 2:12</a>). More especially it may mean "presence after absence," "arrival" (but not "return," unless this is given by the context), as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,17);">1Co 16:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,6,7);">2Co 7:6,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,26);">Php 1:26</a>. And still more particularly it is applied to the Coming of Christ in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,23);">1Co 15:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,19);">1Th 2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,13);">3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,15);">4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,23);">5:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,1,8);">2Th 2:1,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,7,8);">Jas 5:7,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,16);">2Pe 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,4,12);">3:4,12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,28);">1Joh 2:28</a><3E>in all 13 times, besides <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,9);">2Th 2:9</a>, where it denotes the coming of Anti-christ. This word for Christ<73>s Second Coming passed into the early Patristic literature (Diognetus, vii.6, e.g.), but its use in this sense is not invariable. For instance the word in Ignatius, Philadelphians, ix.2, means the Incarnation. Or the Incarnation is called the first Parousia, as in Justin, Trypho, xiv. But in modern theology it means invariably the Second Coming. Recent archaeological discoveries have explained why the word received such general Christian use in the special sense. In Hellenistic Greek it was used for the arrival of a ruler at a place, as is evidenced by inscriptions in Egypt, Asia Minor, etc. Indeed, in an Epidaurus inscription of the 3rd century BC (Dittenberger, Sylloge (2), Number 803, 34), "Parousia" is applied to a manifestation of Aesculapius. Consequently, the adoption by the Greek-speaking Christians of a word that already contained full regal and even Divine concepts was perfectly natural. (The evidence is well summarized in Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East 3, 372-78, German edition, 281-87.)<P>(2) "Epiphany" epiphaneia), "manifestation," used of the Incarnation in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,10);">2Ti 1:10</a>, but of the Second Coming in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,8);">2Th 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,14);">1Ti 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,1,8);">2Ti 4:1,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,13);">Tit 2:13</a>. The word was used like Parousia in Hellenistic Greek to denote the ceremonial arrival of rulers; compare Deissmann, as above.<P>(3) "Apocalypse" apokalupsis), "revelation," denotes the Second Coming in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,7);">1Co 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,7);">2Th 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,7,13);">1Pe 1:7,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,13);">4:13</a>.<P>(4) "Day of the Lord, more or less modified, but referring to Christ in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,8);">1Co 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,5);">5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,14);">2Co 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,6,10);">Php 1:6,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,16);">2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,2);">1Th 5:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,2);">2Th 2:2</a>. The phrase is used of the Father in the strict Old Testament sense in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,20);">Ac 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,12);">2Pe 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,\'6-14\');">Re 1:6-14</a>, and probably in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,10);">2Pe 3:10</a>. Besides, as in the Old Testament and the intermediate literature, "day of wrath," "last day," or simply "day" are used very frequently.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY+OF+THE+LORD">DAY OF THE LORD</a>.<P>Of the first three of the above terms, only Parousia is found in the Gospels, 4 times, all in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,3,17,37,39);">Mt 24:3,17,37,39</a>, and in the last three of these all in the set phrase "so shall be the Parousia of the Son of Man." As Christ spoke in Aramaic, the use of "Parousia" here is of course due to Matthew<65>s adoption of the current Greek word.<P>2. Data and Sources:<P>The last of the 4 terms above brings the apostolic doctrine of the Parousia into connection with the eschatology (Messianic or otherwise) of the Old Testament and of the intermediate writings. But the connection is far closer than that supplied by this single term only, for newly every feature in the apostolic doctrine can be paralleled directly from the Jewish sources. The following summary does not begin to give complete references to even such Jewish material as is extant, but enough is presented to show how closely allied are the eschatologies of Judaism and of early Christianity.<P>The end is not to be expected instantly. There are still signs to come to pass (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,3);">2Th 2:3</a>), and in especial the determined number of martyrs must be filled up (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,11);">Re 6:11</a>; compare 2Esdras 4:35,36). There is need of patience (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,7);">Jas 5:7</a>, etc.; compare 2Esdras 4:34; Baruch 83:4). But it is at hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,7);">1Pe 4:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,3);">Re 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,10);">22:10</a>; compare 2Esdras 14:17). "Yet a little while" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,37);">Heb 10:37</a>), "The night is far spent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,12);">Ro 13:12</a>), "The Lord is at hand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,5);">Php 4:5</a>). "We that are alive" expect to see it (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,15);">1Th 4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,51);">1Co 15:51</a>; compare Baruch 76:5); the time is shortened henceforth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,29);">1Co 7:29</a>; compare Baruch 20:1; 2Esdras 4:26, and the commentaries on 1 Corinthians). Indeed, there is hardly time for repentance even (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,11);">Re 22:11</a>, ironical), certainly there is no time left for self-indulgence (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,3);">1Th 5:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,2);">1Pe 4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,11);">2Pe 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,3);">Re 3:3</a>; compare Baruch 83:5), and watchfulness is urgently demanded (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,6);">1Th 5:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,3);">Re 3:3</a>).<P>An outpouring of the Spirit is a sign of the end (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,17,18);">Ac 2:17,18</a>; compare Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. <span class="noTag">Levi 18:11</A>; Sib Or 4:46, always after the consummation in the Jewish sources). But the world is growing steadily worse, for the godly and intense trials are coming (passim), although those especially favored may be spared suffering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,10);">Re 3:10</a>; compare Baruch 29:2). This is the beginning of Judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,17);">1Pe 4:17</a>; compare Enoch 99:10). Iniquity increases and false teachers are multiplied (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,18);">Jude 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,3);">2Pe 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,\'1-\');">2Ti 3</a>, especially <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,13);">2Ti 3:13</a>; compare Enoch 80:7; Baruch 70:5; 2Esdras 5:9,10). Above all there is to be an outburst of diabolic malevolence in the antichrist (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,18,22);">1Joh 2:18,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,3);">4:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,7);">2Joh 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,\'8-10\');">2Th 2:8-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,19);">Re 19:19</a>; compare Baruch 36:8-10; Sib Or 3:63-70, and see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTICHRIST">ANTICHRIST</a>), who will gather all nations to his ensign (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,19);">Re 19:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,10);">2Th 2:10</a> compare 2Esdras 13:5; Enoch 56). Plagues fall upon men (Rev, passim; compare especially Philo, Execr.), and natural portents occur (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,19,20);">Ac 2:19,20</a>; Rev, passim; compare 2Esdras 5:4,5; Enoch 80:5-8). But the conversion of the Jews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,26);">Ro 11:26</a>) is brought about by these plagues (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,13);">Re 11:13</a>; in the Jewish sources, naturally, conversion of Gentiles, as in Sib Or 3:616-623; Enoch 10:21). Then Christ is manifested and Antichrist is slain or captured (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,8);">2Th 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,20);">Re 19:20</a>; compare 2Esdras 13:10,11). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,3);">Re 20:3</a> the Millennium follows (compare 2Esdras 7:28; 12; 34; Baruch 40:3, and often in rabbinical literature; the millennium in Slavic Enoch, chapter 33, is of very dubious existence), but other traces of millennial doctrine in the New Testament are of the vaguest (compare the commentaries to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,24);">1Co 15:24</a>, for instance, especially Schmiedel, J. Weiss, and Lietzmann, and see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MILLENNIUM">MILLENNIUM</a>). The general resurrection follows (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RESURRECTION">RESURRECTION</a> for details).<P>The Father holds the Judgment in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,30);">Heb 10:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,23);">12:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,4);">13:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,11,12);">Jas 4:11,12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,17);">1Pe 1:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,7);">Re 14:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,11);">20:11</a>, and probably in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,14,15);">Jude 1:14,15</a>. Christ is Judge in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,42);">Ac 10:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,1);">2Ti 4:1</a>. The two concepts are interwoven in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,9,10);">Ro 14:9,10</a>. God mediates judgment through Christ in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,31);">Ac 17:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,16);">Ro 2:16</a>, and probably in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,\'2-6\');">Ro 2:2-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,6);">3:6</a>. In 2 Thessalonians Christ appears as the executor of punishment. For similar uncertainties in the Jewish schemes, compare, for instance, 2Esdras 7:33 and Enoch 45:3. For the fate of the wicked see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESCHATOLOGY">ESCHATOLOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HELL">HELL</A>; Paul, rather curiously, has very little to say about this (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,3);">Ro 2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,17);">1Co 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,8,9);">2Th 1:8,9</a>). Then all Nature is renewed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,21);">Ro 8:21</a>; Enoch 45:4,5) or completely destroyed (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,31);">1Co 7:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,27);">Heb 12:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,1);">Re 21:1</a>; compare Enoch 1:6; 2Esdras 7:30); by fire in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,10);">2Pe 3:10</a> (compare Sib Or 4:172-177), so as to leave only the eternal verities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,27);">Heb 12:27</a>; compare 2Esdras 7:30(?)), or to be replaced with a new heaven and a new earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,1);">Re 21:1</a>; compare Slavic Enoch 33:1-2). And the righteous receive the New Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,26);">Ga 4:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,22);">Heb 12:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,12);">Re 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,2,10);">21:2,10</a>; compare Baruch 4:2-6; 2Esdras 7:26).<P>3. Consistency:<P>It is of course possible, as in the older works on dogmatics, to reconcile the slight divergences of the above details and to fit them all into a single scheme. But the propriety of such an undertaking is more than dubious, for the traditional nature of these details is abundantly clear<61>a tradition that is not due solely to the fact that the Christian and the Jewish schemes have a common Old Testament basis. That the Jewish writers realized that the eschatological details were merely symbolic is made obvious by the contradictions that every apocalypse contains<6E>the contradictions that are the despair of the beginner in apocalyptics. No writer seems to have thought it worth while to reconcile his details, for they were purely figures of dimly comprehended forces. And the Christian symbolism must be interpreted on the same principle. No greater injustice, for instance, could be done Paul<75>s thought than to suppose he would have been in the least disturbed by John<68>s interpretation of the Antichrist as many persons and all of them ordinary human beings (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,18,19);">1Joh 2:18,19</a>).<P>4. Meaning of the Symbolism:<P>The symbolism, then, in which the Parousia is described was simply that held by the apostles in their pre-Christian days. This symbolism, to be sure, has been thoroughly purified from such puerilities as the feast on Leviathan and Behemoth of Baruch 29, or the "thousand children" of Enoch 10:17, a fact all the more remarkable as 2nd-century Christianity has enough of this and to spare (e.g. Irenaeus, v.33). What is more important is that the symbolism of the Parousia is simply in the Jewish sources the symbolism of the coming of the Messiah (or of God in such schemes as have no Messiah). Now it is to be observed that among the apostles the Kingdom of God is almost uniformly regarded as a future quantity (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,9,10);">1Co 6:9,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,50);">15:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,21);">Ga 5:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,5);">Eph 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,1,18);">2Ti 4:1,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,11);">2Pe 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,15);">Re 11:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,10);">12:10</a>), with a definitely present idea only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,13);">Col 1:13</a>. Remembering again that the term "Messiah" means simply "the Bringer of the Kingdom," the case becomes entirely clear. No apostle, of course, ever thought of Christ as anything but the Messiah. But neither did they think of His Messianic work as completed, or, if the most exact terminology be pressed, of the strict Messianic work as done at all. Even the Atonement belonged to the preliminary acts, viewed perhaps somewhat as Enoch 39:6 views the preexistent Messiah<61>s residence among the "church expectant." This could come to pass more readily as the traditions generally were silent as to what the Messiah was to do before He brought the Kingdom, while they all agreed that He was not to be created only at that moment. Into this blank, especially with the aid of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a>, etc., our Lord<72>s earthly life and Passion fitted naturally, leaving the fact of His Second Coming to be identified with the coming of the Messiah as originally conceived.<P>II. The Teaching of Jesus.<P>1. Critical Problems:<P>It will be found helpful, in studying the bitter controversies that have raged around Christ<73>s teaching about the future, to remember that the apostolic idea of the word "Messiah" is the only definition that the word has; that, for instance, "Messiah" and "Saviour of the world" are not quite convertible terms, or that a redefinition of the Messiah as a moral teacher or an expounder of the will of God does not rest on "spiritualizing" of the term, but on a destruction of it in favor of "prophet." Now the three expressions, "Messianic work," "coming of the Kingdom," and "Parousia" are only three titles for one and the same thing, while the addition of "Son of Man" to them merely involves their being taken in the most transcendental form possible. In fact, this is the state of affairs found in the Synoptists. Christ predicts the coming of the Kingdom. He claims the title of its king (or Regent under the Father). The realization of this expectation He placed on the other side of the grave, i.e. in a glorified state. And in connection with this evidence we find His use of the title Son of Man. From all this the doctrine of the Parousia follows immediately, even apart from the passages in which the regular apocalyptic symbolism is used. The contention may be made that this symbolism in the Gospels has been drawn out of other sources by the evangelists (the so-called "Little Apocalypse" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'7-9\');">Mr 13:7-9</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'14-20\');">14-20</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'24-27\');">24-27</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'30-31\');">30-31</a> is the usual point of attack), but, even if the contention could be made out (and agreement in this regard is anything but attained), no really vital part of the case would be touched. Of course, it is possible to begin with the a priori assumption that "no sane man could conceive of himself as an apocalyptic being walking the earth incognito," and to refer to later tradition everything in the Gospels that contradicts this assumption. But then there are difficulties. The various concepts involved are mentioned directly so often that the number of passages to be removed grows alarmingly large. Then the concepts interlock in such a way as to present a remarkably firm resistance to the critical knife; the picture is much too consistent for an artificial product. Thus, there are a number of indirect references (the title on the Cross, the "Palm-Sunday" procession, etc.) that contradict all we know of later growths. And, finally, the most undeterred critic finds himself confronted with a last stubborn difficulty, the unwavering conviction of the earliest church that Christ made the eschatological claims. It is conceivable that the apostles may have misunderstood Christ in other matters, but an error in this central point of all (as the apostles appraised things) is hardly in the realms of critical possibility. On the whole, such an attempt to force a way through the evidence of the documents would seem something surprisingly like the violence done to history by the most perverse of the older dogmatists.<P>2. Summary:<P>The number of relevant passages involved is so large and the critical problems so intricate that any detailed discussion is prohibited here. Moreover, the symbolism presents nothing novel to the student familiar with the usual schemes. Forces of evil increase in the world, the state of the righteous grows harder, distress and natural portents follow, at the climax Christ appears suddenly with His angels, bringing the Kingdom of God, gathers the elect into the Kingdom, and dismisses the wicked into outer darkness (or fire). The Father is the Judge in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,32,33);">Mt 10:32,33</a>, but the Son in the parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,8,9);">Lu 12:8,9</a>, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,41);">Mt 13:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,27);">16:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,32);">25:32</a>; probably in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,50);">Mt 24:50</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,46);">Lu 12:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,38);">Mr 8:38</a> and its parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,26);">Lu 9:26</a> are uncertain. At all events, the eternal destiny of each man depends on Christ<73>s attitude, possibly with the Father<65>s (invariable) ratification considered.<P>3. Fall of Jerusalem:<P>How far Christ connected the Parousia and the fall of Jerusalem, it is not easy to say. Various sayings of Christ about the future were certainly grouped by the evangelists; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,\'1-\');">Mt 24</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'1-\');">Mr 13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,\'20-37\');">Lu 17:20-37</a>; or <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,31);">Lu 17:31</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,15,16);">Mr 13:15,16</a> (noting the inappropriateness of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,31);">Lu 17:31</a> in its present context). The critical discussions of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'1-\');">Mr 13</a> are familiar and those of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,\'1-\');">Lu 21</a> (a still more complex problem) only less so. Remembering what the fall of Jerusalem or its immediate prospect would have meant to the apostles, the tendency to group the statements of Christ will be realized. Consequently, not too much stress should be laid on the connection of this with the Parousia, and in no case can the fall of Jerusalem be considered to exhaust the meaning of the Parousia.<P>4. Time:<P>The most debated question is that of the time of the Parousia. Here <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,30);">Mr 13:30</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,32);">Lu 21:32</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,34);">Mt 24:34</a> place it within Christ<73>s generation, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,1);">Mr 9:1</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,27);">Lu 9:27</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,28);">Mt 16:28</a> within the lifetime of some of His hearers, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,23);">Mt 10:23</a> before all the cities of Judea are closed to Christ<73>s apostles. (Only the first of these contains any reference to the fall of Jerusalem.) Then there is "ye shall see" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,62);">Mr 14:62</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,35);">Lu 13:35</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,39);">Mt 23:39</a>. Agreeing with this are the exhortations to watchfulness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'33-37\');">Mr 13:33-37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,40);">Lu 12:40</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,44);">Mt 24:44</a>, etc., with many parables, such as the Ten Virgins). Now <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,36);">Mt 24:36</a> do not quite contradict this, for knowledge of the generation is quite consistent with ignorance of the day and hour; "It will be within your generation, but nothing more can be told you, so watch!" The real difficulty lies in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,10);">Mr 13:10</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,14);">Mt 24:14</a>, the necessity of all Gentiles hearing the gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,24);">Lu 21:24</a> is hardly relevant). To leave the question here, as most conservative scholars do, is unsatisfactory, for <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,10);">Mr 13:10</a> is of no deep value for apologetic service and this value is far outweighed by the real contradiction with the other passages. The key, probably, lies in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,18);">Mt 10:18</a>, from which <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,10);">Mr 13:10</a> differs only in insisting on all Gentiles, perhaps with the apostles<65> thought that "world" and "Roman Empire" were practically coextensive. With this assumption the data yield a uniform result.<P>III. John<68>s Evaluatlon.<P>1. Solution of Problem:<P>It appears, then, that Christ predicted that shortly after His death an event would occur of so transcendental a nature that it could be expressed only in the terms of the fullest eschatological symbolism. John has a clear interpretation of this. In place of the long Parousia discourses in the Synoptists, we have, in the corresponding part of the Fourth Gospel, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,\'1-\');">John 13-17</a>, dealing not only with the future in general but concretely with Christ<73>s coming and the Judgment. Christ indeed came to His own (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,18);">Joh 14:18</a>), and not He only but the Spirit also (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,16);">14:16</a>), and even the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,23);">14:23</A>). When the disciples are so equipped, their presence in the world subjects the world to a continual sifting process of judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,11);">16:11</a>). The fate of men by this process is to be eternally fixed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,18);">3:18</a>), while the disciples newly made are assured that they have already entered into their eternal condition of blessedness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,25,26);">11:25,26</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,24);">5:24</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,28);">10:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,2,3);">17:2,3</A>). Equally directly the presence of Christ is conceived in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,20);">Re 3:20</a>. So in Paul, the glorified Christ has returned to His own to dwell in them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,9,10);">Ro 8:9,10</a>, etc.), uniting them into a body vitally connected with Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,18);">Col 1:18</a>), so supernatural that it is the teacher of <20>angels<6C> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,10);">Eph 3:10</a>), a body whose members are already in the Kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,13);">Col 1:13</a>), who even sit already in heavenly places (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,6);">Eph 2:6</a>). The same thought is found in such synoptic passages (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,28);">Lu 7:28</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,11);">Mt 11:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,21);">Lu 17:21</a>(?); see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KINGDOM+OF+GOD">KINGDOM OF GOD</A>) as represent the Kingdom as present. Already the eschatological promises were realized in a small group of men, even though they still lacked the transforming influence of the Spirit. Compare the continuous coming of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,64);">Mt 26:64</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,69);">Lu 22:69</a>).<P>It is on these lines of the church as a supernatural quantity (of course not to be confused with any particular denomination) that the immediate realization of the Parousia promises is to be sought. Into human history has been "injected" a supernatural quantity, through which a Divine Head works, whose reaction on men settles their eternal destiny, and within which the life of heaven is begun definitely.<P>2. The Church a Divine Quantity:<P>The force in this body is felt at the crises of human history, perhaps especially after the catastrophe that destroyed Jerusalem and set Christianity free from the swaddling clothes of the primitive community. This conception of the church as a divine quantity, as, so to speak, a part of heaven extended into earth, is faithful to the essentials of the predictions. Nor is it a rationalization of them, if the idea of the church itself be not rationalized. With this conception all realms of Christian activity take on a transcendental significance, both in life and (especially) death, giving to the individual the confidence that he is building better than he knows, for even the apostles could not realize the full significance of what they were doing. Generally speaking, the details in the symbolism must not be pressed. The purpose of revelation is to minister to life, not to curiosity, and, in teaching of the future, Christ simply taught with the formal language of the schools of the day, with the one change that in the supernatural process He Himself was to be the central figure. Still, the end is not yet. "The hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,28);">Joh 5:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,40);">Joh 6:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,23);">21:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,28);">1Joh 2:28</a>). In Christ human destiny is drawing to a climax that can be expressed only in spiritual terms that transcend our conceptions.<P>LITERATURE.<P>This is overwhelming. For the presuppositions, GJV4 (HJP is antiquated); Volz, Judische Eschatologie; Bousset, Religion des Judentums(2). General discussions: Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the New Testament (the best in English); Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research; Holtzmann, Das messianische Bewusstein Jesu (a classic); von Dobschiitz, The Eschatology of the Gospels (popular, but very sound). Eschatological extreme: Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Von Reimarus zu Wrede), is quite indispensable; Tyrrell, Christianity at the Cross Roads (perverse, but valuable in parts); Loisy, Gospel and the Church (compare his Evangiles synoptiques). Anti-eschatological: Sharman, The Teaching of Jesus about the Future (minute criticism, inadequate premises, some astounding exegesis); Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story (based on Wellhausen). For the older literature see Schweitzer, Sanday, Holtzmann, as above, and compare Fairweather, The Background of the Gospels, and Brown, "Parousia," in HDB, III.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESCHATOLOGY+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>`48';
isbe[6711]='Parshandatha`par-shan-da\'-tha, par-shan\'-da-tha (parshandatha; Septuagint Pharsan, or Pharsanestan; perhaps from the Persian fratsna-data, "given by prayer"): One of the sons of Haman (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',9,7);">Es 9:7</a>).``1';
isbe[6712]='Part`part: "to part" as a verb is no longer in good use (except in a few special phrases, compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',1,17);">Ru 1:17</a>), but is obscure only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',18,18);">Pr 18:18</a>, where the meaning is "break up their quarrel" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,6);">2Sa 14:6</a>). the Revised Version (British and American) has not changed the King James Version\'s usage, except (strangely) in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,24);">1Sa 30:24</a>, where "share" is written.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PORTION">PORTION</a>`1';
isbe[6713]='Parthians`par\'-thi-anz (Parthoi):<P>1. Country and Early History:<P>A people mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,9);">Ac 2:9</a> only, in connection with other strangers present at Jerusalem at Pentecost, from which we infer that they were Jews or proselytes from the regions included in the Parthian empire. This empire stretched from the Euphrates to the confines of India and the Oxus, and for centuries was the rival of Rome, and more than once proved her match on the battlefield. The Parthians are not mentioned in the Old Testament, but are frequently in Josephus, and they had an important connection with the history of the Jews, on account of the large colonies of the latter in Mesopotamia, and the interference of the Parthians in the affairs of Judea, once making it a vassal state.<P>Parthia proper was a small territory to the southeast of the Caspian Sea, about 300 miles long by 120 wide, a fertile though mountainous region, bordering on the desert tract of Eastern Persia. The origin of the Parthians is rather uncertain, though the prevailing opinion is that they were of Scythic stock or of the great Tartar race. We have no reference to them earlier than the time of Darius the Great, but they were doubtless among the tribes subdued by Cyrus, as they are mentioned by Darius as being in revolt. They seem to have remained faithful to the Persians after that, and submitted to Alexander without resistance.<P>2. The Seleucid Kings:<P>Next they came under the rule of the Seleucid kings of Syria, but revolted about 250 BC, in the reign of Antiochus II (Theos), and gained their independence under the lead of Arsaces I who established the dynasty of the Arsacidae, which continued for nearly 5 centuries. His capital was Hecatompylos, but his reign continued only about 3 years, and his brother Tridates succeeded him as Arsaces II and he consolidated the kingdom. The war between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies freed him from interference from that quarter until 237 BC, when Seleucus II (Callinicus) marched against him, but was completely defeated, and Parthian independence was secured. Artabanus I, who followed him, extended his dominions westward to the Zagros Mountains, but Antiochus III would not permit such an encroachment with impunity, and led an expedition against him, driving him back and even invading his ancestral dominion. But after a struggle of some years the Parthians remained still unsubdued, and the difficulties of the contest led Antiochus to conclude peace with him in which he acknowledged the independence of Parthia. For about a quarter of a century the king of Parthia remained quiet, but Phraates I (181-174 BC) recommenced aggressions on the Seleucid empire which Were continued by Mithridates I (174-137), who added to his dominions a part of Bactria, on the east, and Media, Persia and Babylonia on the west. This was a challenge to Demetrius II, of Syria, to whose empire the provinces belonged, and he marched against him with a large force, but was defeated and taken prisoner. He remained in Parthia some years, well treated by Phraates II, whose sister he married, and, when Phraates wished to create a diversion against Antiochus Sidetes, he set Demetrius at liberty and sent him back to Syria. Antiochus was at first successful, as his force of 300,000 men far outnumbered the Parthians, but he was at last defeated and slain in 129 BC and his army destroyed. This was the last attempt of the Seleucid kings to subdue Parthia, and it was acknowledged as the dominant power in Western Asia. But Phraates fell in conflict with the Scyths, whom he called in to aid him in his war with Sidetes, and his successor likewise, and it was only on the accession of Mithridates in 124 BC that these barbarians were checked. The king then turned his attention toward Armenia, which he probably brought under his control, but its king Tigranes recovered its independence and even attacked the Parthians, and took from them two provinces in Mesopotamia.<P>3. In Contact with Rome:<P>Not long after, the power of Rome came into contact with armenia and Parthia. In 66 BC when, after subduing Mithridates of Pontus, Pompey came into Syria, Phraates III made an alliance with him against Armenia, but was offended by the way in which he was treated and thought of turning against his ally, but refrained for the time being. It was only a question of time when the two powers would come to blows, for Parthia had become an empire and could ill brook the intrusion of Rome into Western Asia. It was the ambition and greed of Crassus that brought about the clash of Rome and Parthia. When he took the East as his share of the Roman world as apportioned among the triumvirs, he determined to rival Caesar in fame and wealth by subduing Parthia, and advanced across the Euphrates on his ill-fated expedition in 53 BC. The story of his defeat and death and the destruction of the army and loss of the Roman eagles is familiar to all readers of Roman history. It revealed Parthia to the world as the formidable rival of Rome, which she continued to be for nearly 3 centuries. After the death of Crassus, the Parthians crossed the Euphrates and ravaged Northern Syria, but retired the following year without securing any portion of the country, and thus ended the first war with Rome. In 40 BC, after the battle of Philippi, Pacorus, who was then king, invaded Syria a second time and took possession of it together with all Palestine, Tyre alone escaping subjection. He set Antigonus on the throne of Judea, deposing Hyrcanus for the purpose. Syria and Palestine remained in the hands of Parthia for 3 years, but the coming of Ventidius gave a new turn to affairs. He drove the Parthians out of Syria, and when they returned the following year, he defeated them again and Pacorus was slain. Parthia had to retire within her own borders and remain on the defensive. Antony\'s attempt to subdue them proved abortive, and his struggle with Octavian compelled him to relinquish the project. The Parthians were unable to take advantage of the strife in the Roman empire on account of troubles at home. an insurrection led by Tiridates drove the king Phraates IV from the throne, but he recovered it by the aid of the Scyths, and Tiridates took refuge in Syria with the youngest son of the king. Augustus afterward restored him without ransom, and obtained the lost standards of Crassus, and thus peace was established between the rival empires. Each had learned to respect the power of the other, and, although contention arose regarding the suzerainty of armenia, peace was not seriously disturbed between them for about 130 years, or until the reign of Trajan. Parthia was not at peace with herself, however. Dynastic troubles were frequent, and the reigns of the kings short. Artabanus III, who reigned 16-42 AD, was twice expelled from his kingdom and twice recovered his throne. In his days occurred a terrible massacre of Jewish colonists in Mesopotamia, as narrated by Josephus (Ant., XVIII, ix). The contest with Rome over Armenia was settled in the days of Nero in a manner satisfactory to both parties, so that peace was not broken for 50 years. The ambition of Trajan led him to disregard the policy inaugurated by Augustus, adhered to, for the most part, by succeeding emperors, not to extend the limits of the empire. After the conquest of Dacia he turned his attention to the East and resolved on the invasion of Parthia. The Parthian king, Chosroes, endeavored to placate Trajan by an embassy bearing presents and proposals of peace, but Trajan rejected them and carried out his purpose. He subdued armenia, took Upper Mesopotamia, Adiabebe (Assyria), Ctesiphon, the capital, and reached the Pets Gulf, but was obliged to turn back by revolts in his rear and failed to reduce the fortress of Hatra. The conquered provinces were restored, however, by Hadrian, and the Parthians did not retaliate until the reign of Aurelius, when they overran Syria, and in 162 AD Lucius Verus was sent to punish them. In the following year he drove them back and advanced into the heart of the Parthian empire, inflicting the severest blow it had yet received. It was evident that the empire was on the decline, and the Romans did not meet with the resistance they had experienced in former times. Severus and Caracalla both made expeditions into the country, and the latter took the capital and massacred the inhabitants, but after his assassination his successor, Macrinus, fought a three days\' battle with the Parthians at Nisibis in which he was worsted and was glad to conclude a peace by paying an indemnity of some 1,500,000 British pounds (217 AD).<P>4. Fall of the Empire:<P>But this was the last achievement of the Parthians. It is evident that Artabanus had suffered severely in his conflict with the Romans, and was unable to put down the revolt of the Persians under the lead of Artaxerxes, who overthrew the Parthian empire and established the dynasty of the Sassanidae in its place (226 AD).<P>5. Culture:<P>The Parthians were not a cultured people, but displayed a rude magnificence, making use, to some extent, of remains of Greek culture which they found within the regions they seized from the empire of Alexander. They had no native literature, as far as known, but made use of Greek in writing and on their coins. They were familiar with Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic, and the later kings had Semitic legends on their coins. Josephus is said to have written his history of the Jewish War in his native tongue for Parthian readers. In their method of government they seem to have left the different provinces pretty much to themselves, so long as they paid tribute and furnished the necessary contingents.``138';
isbe[6714]='Particular, Particularly`pir-tik\'-u-lar, par-tik\'-u-lar-li: The adverbial phrase "in particular" occurs twice in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,27);">1Co 12:27</a>, ek merous, the Revised Version (British and American) "severally," the Revised Version margin "each in his part"; and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,33);">Eph 5:33</a>, hoi kath\' hena, the Revised Version (British and American) "severally"); in both cases it has the obsolete meaning of "severally," "individually." The adverb "particularly" occurs in the same sense in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,19);">Ac 21:19</a> the King James Version, kath\' hen hekaston, the Revised Version (British and American) "one by one," and <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,5);">Heb 9:5</a> the King James Version, kata meros, the Revised Version (British and American) "severally." We have the plural noun in the sense of "details" in 2Macc 2:30: "to be curious in particulars"; 11:20, (the King James Version "Of the particulars I have given order," the Revised Version (British and American) I have given order in detail); and the adjective "particular" in the sense of "special" in the first Prologue to Sirach (King James Version, Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) peculiares; the whole section was omitted in the Revised Version (British and American)).``49';
isbe[6715]='Partition, the Middle Wall of`par-tish\'-un, par-tish\'-un (to mesotoichon tou phragmou (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,14);">Eph 2:14</a>)):<P>1. The Barrier in the Temple<P>What Paul here asserts is that Christ is our peace, the peace of both Jewish and Gentile believers. He has made them both to be one in Himself, and has broken down the middle wall of partition which divided them from one another. Then the apostle regards Jew and Gentile as two, who by a fresh act of creation in Christ are made into one new man. In the former of these similes he refers to an actual wall in the temple at Jerusalem, beyond which no one was allowed to pass unless he were a Jew, the balustrade or barrier which marked the limit up to which a Gentile might advance but no farther. Curiously, this middle wall of partition had a great deal to do with Paul\'s arrest and imprisonment, for the multitude of the Jews became infuriated, not merely because of their general hostility to him as an apostle of Christ and a preacher of the gospel for the world, but specially because it was erroneously supposed that he had brought Trophimus the Ephesian past this barrier into the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,29);">Ac 21:29</a>), and that he had in this manner profaned the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,6);">Ac 24:6</a>), or, as it is put in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,28);">Ac 21:28</a>, he had \'brought Greeks into the temple and polluted this holy place.\' In the assault which they thereupon made on Paul they violently seized and dragged him out of the temple-dragged him outside the balustrade. The Levites at once shut the gates, to prevent the possibility of any further profanation, and Paul would have been torn in pieces, had not the Roman commander and his soldiers forcibly prevented.<P>2. Herod\'s Temple; Its Divisions; the Courts:<P>In building the temple Herod the Great had enclosed a large area to form the various courts. The temple itself consisted of the two divisions, the Holy Place, entered by the priests every day, and the Holy of Holies into which the high priest entered alone once every year. Immediately outside the temple there was the Court of the Priests, and in it was placed the great altar of burnt offering. Outside of this again was the Court of the Sons of Israel, and beyond this the Court of the Women. The site of the temple itself and the space occupied by the various courts already mentioned formed a raised plateau or platform. "From it you descended at various points down 5 steps and through gates in a lofty wall, to find yourself overlooking another large court<72>the outer court to which Gentiles, who desired to see something of the glories of the temple and to offer gifts and sacrifices to the God of the Jews, were freely admitted. Farther in than this court they were forbidden, on pain of death, to go. The actual boundary line was not the high wall with its gates, but a low stone barrier about 5 ft. in height, which ran round at the bottom of 14 more steps" (J. Armitage Robinson, D.D., Paul\'s Epistle to the Ephesians, 59; see also Edersheim, The Temple, Its Ministry and Services as They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ, 46).<P>The middle wall of partition was called Coregh, and was built of marble beautifully ornamented.<P>3. The Court of the Gentiles:<P>The Court of the Gentiles formed the lowest and the outermost enclosure of all the courts of the sanctuary. It was paved with the finest variegated marble. Its name signified that it was open to all, Jews or Gentiles alike. It was very large, and is said by Jewish tradition to have formed a square of 750 ft. It was in this court that the oxen and sheep and the doves for the sacrifices were sold as in a market. It was in this court too that there were the tables of the money-changers, which Christ Himself overthrew when He drove out the sheep and oxen and them that bought and sold in His Father\'s house. The multitudes assembling in this court must have been very great, especially on occasions such as the Passover and Pentecost and at the other great feasts, and the din of voices must oftentimes have been most disturbing. As already seen, beyond this court no Gentile might go.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE">TEMPLE</a>.<P>In the year 1871, while excavations were being made on the site of the temple by the Palestine Exploration Fund, M. Clermont-Ganneau discovered one of the pillars which Josephus describes as having been erected upon the very barrier or middle wall of partition, to which Paul refers. This pillar is now preserved in the Museum at Constantinople and is inscribed with a Greek inscription in capital or uncial letters, which is translated as follows:<P class="in15">NO MAN OF ANOTHER NATION<br>TO ENTER WITHIN THE FENCE AND<br>ENCLOSURE ROUND THE TEMPLE,<br>AND WHOEVER IS CAUGHT WILL<br>HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME THAT<br>HIS DEATH ENSUES<P>While Paul was writing the Epistle to the Ephesians at Rome, this barrier in the temple at Jerusalem was still standing, yet the chained prisoner of Jesus Christ was not afraid to write that Christ had broken down the middle wall of partition, and had thus admitted Gentiles who were far off, strangers and foreigners, to all the privileges of access to God in ancient times possessed by Israel alone; that separation between Jew and Gentile was done away with forever in Christ.<P>4. The Throwing Down of the Barrier:<P>If Paul wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians in 60 or 61 AD, then the actual barrier of stone remained in its position in the Court of the Gentiles not more than some 10 years, for it was thrown down in the burning of the temple by the Roman army. And out of those ruins a fragment has been excavated in our own day, containing the very inscription threatening death to the Gentile intruder, and reminding us that it is only in Christ Jesus that we now draw nigh unto God, and that we are thus one body in Christ, one new man. Christ has broken down the middle wall of partition, for He, in His own person, is our peace.``155';
isbe[6716]='Partridge`par\'-trij (qore; Latin perdix; Septuagint, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,20);">1Sa 26:20</a>, nuktikorax, "owl," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,11);">Jer 17:11</a>, perdix): a bird of the family Tetraonidae. The Hebrew word for this bird, qore\', means "a caller," and the Latin perdix is supposed to be an imitation of its cry, and as all other nations base their name for the bird on the Latin, it becomes quite evident that it was originally named in imitation of its call. The commonest partridge of Palestine, very numerous in the wilderness and hill country, was a bird almost as large as a pheasant. It had a clear, exquisite cry that attracted attention, especially in the mating season. The partridge of the wilderness was smaller and of beautifully marked plumage. It made its home around the Dead Sea, in the Wilderness of Judea and in rocky caverns. Its eggs were creamy white; its cry very similar to its relatives\'. The partridge and its eggs were used for food from time immemorial.<P>The first reference to it is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,20);">1Sa 26:20</a>: "Now therefore, let not my blood fall to the earth away from the presence of Yahweh: for the king of Israel is come out to seek a flea, as when one doth hunt a partridge in the mountains." David in this dialogue with Saul clearly indicates that if he did not hunt the partridge himself, he knew how it was done. The birds were commonly chased up the mountains and stunned or killed with "throw sticks." David knew how deft these birds were at hiding beside logs and under dry leaves colored so like them as to afford splendid protection; how swiftly they could run; what expert dodgers they were; so he compared taking them with catching a flea. The other reference is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,11);">Jer 17:11</a>: "As the partridge that sitteth on eggs which she hath not laid, so is he that getteth riches, and not by right; in the midst of his days they shall leave him, and at his end he shall be a fool." If this reference is supposed to indicate that partridges are in the habit of brooding on the nest of their kind or of different birds, it fails wholly to take into consideration the history of the bird. Partridges select a location, carefully deposit an egg a day for from 10 to 15 days, sometimes 20, and then brood, so that all the young emerge at one time. But each bird knows and returns to its nest with unfailing regularity. It would require the proverbial "Philadelphia lawyer" to explain this reference to a "partridge sitting on eggs she had not laid." No ornithologist ever could reconcile it to the habits or characteristics of the birds. the King James Version translated these lines, "As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not." This was easy to explain clearly. The eggs of the partridge were delicious food, and any brooding bird whose nest was discovered after only a few days of incubation did not hatch, because she lost her eggs. Also the eggs frequently fall prey to other birds or small animals. Again, they are at the mercy of the elements, sometimes being spoiled by extremely wet cold weather. Poultry fanciers assert that a heavy thunder storm will spoil chicken eggs when hatchingtime is close; the same might be true with eggs of the wild. And almost any wild bird will desert its nest and make its former brooding useless, if the location is visited too frequently by man or beast.<P>There is also a partridge reference in the Book of Ecclesiasticus 11:29ff the Revised Version (British and American)): "Bring not every man into thine house; for many are the plots of the deceitful man. As a decoy partridge in a cage, so is the heart of a proud man; and as one that is a spy, he looketh upon thy falling. For he lieth in wait to turn things that are good into evil; and in things that are praiseworthy he will lay blame." The reference is to confining a tame partridge in a hidden cage so that its calls would lure many of its family within range of arrows or "throw sticks" used by concealed hunters.``167';
isbe[6717]='Paruah`pa-roo\'-a (paruach "blooming"): Father of Jehoshaphat, who was one of Solomon\'s twelve victualers or providers, and had charge in Isaachar of this function (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,17);">1Ki 4:17</a>).``1';
isbe[6718]='Parvaim`par-va\'-im (parwayim; Septuagint Pharouaim): The word occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',3,6);">2Ch 3:6</a>, as the place from which Solomon obtained gold for the decoration of his Temple. A derivation is given from the Sanskrit purva, "eastern," so that the name might be a vague term for the East (Gesenius, Thesaurus, 1125). Whether there was such a place in arabia is doubtful. Farwa in Yemen has been suggested, and also Saq el Farwain in Yemamah. Some have considered the name a shortened form of Cepharvayim which occurs in the Syriac and Targum Jonathan for the "Sephar" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,30);">Ge 10:30</a>.``63';
isbe[6719]='Pas-Dammim`pas-dam\'-im.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EPHES+DAMMIM">EPHES-DAMMIM</a>`1';
isbe[6720]='Pasach`pa\'-sak (pacakh, "divider"): Son of Japhlet, descendant of Asher (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,33);">1Ch 7:33</a>).``1';
isbe[6721]='Paseah`pa-se\'-a, pas\'-e-a (paceach "limping"):<P>(1) A son of Eshton, descendant of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,12);">1Ch 4:12</a>).<P>(2) The eponym of a family of Nethinim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,49);">Ezr 2:49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,51);">Ne 7:51</a>, the King James Version "Phaseah" equals "Phinoe" (1Esdras 5:31).<P>(3) Father of Joiada, who helped to repair the old gate (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,6);">Ne 3:6</a>).``1';
isbe[6722]='Pashhur, Pashur`pash\'-hur, pash\'-ur (pashchur, "splitter," "cleaver"): The name of several persons difficult to individuate:<P>(1) A priest, son of Immer, and "chief governor in the house of the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,1);">Jer 20:1</a>), who persecuted Jeremiah, putting him in "the stocks" hard by the "house of Yahweh" in the "gate of Benjamin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,2);">Jer 20:2</a>). When released, Jeremiah pronounced Divine judgment on him and the people. Future captivity and an exile\'s death are promised to Pashur whose name he changed from its masterful significance to a cowering one. "Terror on every side" (maghor miccabhibh) is to take the place of "stable strength" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,3);">Jer 20:3</a>).<P>(2) Son of Melchiah, a prince of Judah, and one of the delegation sent by Zedekiah, the king, to consult Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',21,1);">Jer 21:1</a>). It looks like a larger and later deputation, similarly sent, to which this Pashur belongs, whose record is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,\'1-13\');">Jer 38:1-13</a>. Accompanying them was one, Gedaliah, who was a son of (3).<P>(3) Another Pashur (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,1);">Jer 38:1</a>), who may be the person mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,12);">1Ch 9:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,12);">Ne 11:12</a>.<P>(4) A priest, of those who "sealed" Nehemiah\'s covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,1,3);">Ne 10:1,3</a>), who may, however, be the same as (5).<P>(5) The chief of a priestly family called "sons of Pashur" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,38);">Ezr 2:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,22);">10:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,41);">Ne 7:41</a>; 1Esdras 5:25 ("Phassurus," margin "Pashhur"); 1Esdras 9:22 ("Phaisur," margin "Pashhur")). Doubtless it is this Pashur, some of whose sons had "strange wives" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,22);">Ezr 10:22</a>).``186';
isbe[6723]='Pass, Passage, Passenger`pas, pas\'-aj, pas\'-en-jer: "To pass" bears different meanings and corresponds to various words in Hebrew and Greek. It occurs frequently in the phrase "and it came to pass" (literally, "and it was"). This is simply a Hebrew idiom linking together the different paragraphs of a continuous narrative. As a rule "pass" renders the Hebrew word \'abhar. This verb has various meanings, e.g. "to pass over" a stream (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,21);">Ge 31:21</a>); "to cross" a boundary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,17);">Nu 20:17</a>); "to pass through," or "traverse," a country (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,22);">Nu 21:22</a>); "to pass on" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,5);">Ge 18:5</a>); "to pass away," "cease to exist" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,15);">Job 30:15</a>). The word is used metaphorically, "to pass over," "overstep," "transgress" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,41);">Nu 14:41</a>). In the causative form the verb is used in the phrase "to cause to pass through fire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,10);">De 18:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,3);">2Ki 16:3</a>). In the King James Version "pass" sometimes has the force of "surpass," "exceed," e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,22);">2Ch 9:22</a>, "King Solomon passed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom"; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,19);">Eph 3:19</a>, "the love of Christ which passeth knowledge," and <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,7);">Php 4:7</a>, "the peace of God, which passeth all understanding."<P>Passage in the King James Version renders ma\'abhar, or ma\'abharah. The former word denotes (1) the ford of a river (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,23);">Ge 32:23</a> King James Version margin); (2) the pass of a mountain range (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,23);">1Sa 13:23</a>). In the only other instance of the use of the shorter form (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,32);">Isa 30:32</a> margin), the King James Version renders "where the grounded staff shall pass." A more correct translation would be, "and every sweep (or stroke) of the appointed staff." The longer form bears both meanings, namely, "ford" (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,7);">Jos 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,28);">Jud 3:28</a>, etc.) and "pass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,4);">1Sa 14:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,29);">Isa 10:29</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,11);">Jos 22:11</a>, the rendering \'towards the region opposite the children of Israel\' would be more correct than the King James Version, "at the passage of the children of Israel." In English Versions of the Bible of <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,21);">Nu 20:21</a> "passage" seems to mean "right of way," and renders the infinitive of the Hebrew verb. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,20);">Jer 22:20</a> the King James Version the word rendered "passage" should be translated "from Abarim" (as in the Revised Version (British and American)), a mountain range in Moab, northeast of the Dead Sea.<P>Passenger in the King James Version means a "passer-by." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,11,14,15);">Eze 39:11,14,15</a> where the word occurs 4 times in the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) translates "them that pass through."``103';
isbe[6724]='Passing of Mary, the``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>`1';
isbe[6725]='Passion, Gospel of the``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>`1';
isbe[6726]='Passion, Passions`pash\'-un, pash\'-unz: "Passion" is derived from Latin passio, which in turn is derived from the verb patior, with the root, pat-. The Latin words are connected with the Greek root, path-, which appears in a large number of derivatives. And in Greek, Latin, and English (with other languages in addition) words connected with this root, pat-, path-, are often susceptible of a great variety of meanings, for which the dictionaries must be consulted. For "passion," however, as it appears in English Versions of the Bible, only three of these meanings need be considered.<P>(1) Close to what seems to be the primary force of the root is the meaning "suffer," and in this sense "passion" is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,3);">Ac 1:3</a>, "to whom he also showed himself alive after his passion." This translation is a paraphrase (Greek: "after he had suffered"), due to the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) (post passionem suam), and in English is as old as Wycliff, whom the subsequent English Versions of the Bible has followed. This is the only case in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) where "passion" has this meaning, and it can be so used in modern English only when referring (as here) to the sufferings of Christ (compare "Passion play").<P>(2) "Suffering," when applied to the mind, came to denote the state that is controlled by some emotion, and so "passion" was applied to the emotion itself. This is the meaning of the word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,15);">Ac 14:15</a>, "men of like passions," and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,17);">Jas 5:17</a>, "a man of like passions," Greek homoiopathes; the Revised Version margin "of like nature" gives the meaning exactly: "men with the same emotions as we."<P>(3) From "emotion" a transition took place to "strong emotion," and this is the normal force of "passion" in modern English the King James Version does not use this meaning, but in the Revised Version (British and American) "passion" in this sense is the translation of pathos, in its three occurrences: <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,26);">Ro 1:26</a> (the King James Version "affection"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,5);">Col 3:5</a> (the King James Version "inordinate affection"); <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,5);">1Th 4:5</a> (the King James Version "lust").<P>It is used also for two occurrences of pathema (closely allied to pathos) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,5);">Ro 7:5</a> (the King James Version "motions," the King James Version margin "passions") and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,24);">Ga 5:24</a> (the King James Version "affection"). The fixing of the exact force in any of these cases is a delicate problem fully discussed in the commentaries. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,5);">Col 3:5</a> only does "passion" stand as an isolated term. The context here perhaps gives the word a slight sexual reference, but this must not be overstressed; the warning probably includes any violent over-emotion that robs a man of his self-control.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AFFECTION">AFFECTION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MOTION">MOTION</a>`48';
isbe[6727]='Passover`pas\'-o-ver (pecach, from pacach, "to pass" or "spring over" or "to spare" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,13,23,27);">Ex 12:13,23,27</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',31,5);">Isa 31:5</a>. Other conjectures connect the word with the "passing over" into a new year, with assyr pasahu, meaning "to placate," with Hebrew pacah, meaning "to dance," and even with the skipping motions of a young lamb; Aramaic paccha\', whence Greek Pascha; whence English "paschal." In early Christian centuries folk-etymology connected pascha with Greek pascho, "to suffer" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PASSION">PASSION</A>), and the word was taken to refer to Good Friday rather than the Passover):<P>1. Pecach and Matstsoth<P>2. Pecach mitsrayim<P>3. Pecach doroth<P>4. Matstsoth<P>5. The \'Omer<P>6. Non-traditional Theories<P>7. The Higher Criticism<P>8. Historical Celebrations: Old Testament Times<P>9. Historical Celebrations: New Testament Times<P>10. The Jewish Passover<hr /><P>1. Pecach and Matstsoth:<P>The Passover was the annual Hebrew festival on the evening of the 14th day of the month of \'Abhibh (Abib) or Nisan, as it was called in later times. It was followed by, and closely connected with, a 7 days\' festival of matstsoth, or unleavened bread, to which the name Passover was also applied by extension (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,5);">Le 23:5</a>). Both were distinctly connected with the Exodus, which, according to tradition, they commemorate; the Passover being in imitation of the last meal in Egypt, eaten in preparation for the journey, while Yahweh, passing over the houses of the Hebrews, was slaying the firstborn of Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,12);">Ex 12:12</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,2,12);">13:2,12</a>); the matstsoth festival being in memory of the first days of the journey during which this bread of haste was eaten (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'14-20\');">Ex 12:14-20</a>).<P>2. Pecach mitsrayim:<P>The ordinance of pecach mitsrayim, the last meal in Egypt, included the following provisions:<P>(1) the taking of a lamb, or kid without blemish, for each household on the 10th of the month;<P>(2) the killing of the lamb on the 14th at even;<P>(3) the sprinkling of the blood on doorposts and lintels of the houses in which it was to be eaten;<P>(4) the roasting of the lamb with fire, its head with its legs and inwards<64>the lamb was not to be eaten raw nor sodden (bashal) with water;<P>(5) the eating of unleavened bread and bitter herbs;<P>(6) eating in haste, with loins girded, shoes on the feet, and staff in hand;<P>(7) and remaining in the house until the morning;<P>(8) the burning of all that remained; the Passover could be eaten only during the night (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'1-23\');">Ex 12:1-23</a>).<P>3. Pecach doroth:<P>This service was to be observed as an ordinance forever (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,14,24);">Ex 12:14,24</a>), and the night was to be lel shimmurim, "a night of vigils," or, at least, "to be much observed" of all the children of Israel throughout their generations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,42);">Ex 12:42</a>). The details, however, of the pecach doroth, or later observances of the Passover, seem to have differed slightly from those of the Egyptian Passover (Mishna, Pesachim, ix.5). Thus, it is probable that the victim could be taken from the flock or from the herd (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,2);">De 16:2</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,22);">Eze 45:22</a>). (3), (6) and (7) disappeared entirely, and judging from <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,7);">De 16:7</a>, the prohibition against seething (Hebrew bashal) was not understood to apply (unless, indeed, the omission of the expression with water" gives a more general sense to the Hebrew word bashal, making it include roasting). New details were also added: for example, that the Passover could be sacrificed only at the central sanctuary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,5);">De 16:5</a>); that no alien or uncircumcised person, or unclean person could partake thereof, and that one prevented by uncleanness or other cause from celebrating the Passover in season could do so a month later (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',9,9);">Nu 9:9</a>). The singing of the Hallel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',113,\'1-\');">Psalms 113-118</a>), both while the Passover was being slaughtered and at the meal, and other details were no doubt added from time to time.<P>4. Matstsoth:<P>Unleavened bread was eaten with the Passover meal, just as with all sacrificial meals of later times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,18);">Ex 23:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,25);">34:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,12);">Le 7:12</a>), independently perhaps of the fact that the Passover came in such close proximity with the Feast of Unleavened Bread (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,8);">Ex 12:8</a>). Jewish tradition distinguishes, at any rate, between the first night and the rest of the festival in that the eating of matstsoth is an obligation on the first night and optional during the rest of the week (Pesachim 120a), although the eating of unleavened bread is commanded in general terms (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,15,18);">Ex 12:15,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,6,7);">13:6,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,15);">23:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,18);">34:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,6);">Le 23:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,17);">Nu 28:17</a>). The eating of leavened bread is strictly prohibited, however, during the entire week under the penalty of kareth, "excision" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,15,19);">Ex 12:15,19</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,3);">13:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,3);">De 16:3</a>), and this prohibition has been observed traditionally with great care. The 1st and 7th days are holy convocations, days on which no labor could be done except such as was necessary in the preparation of food. The festival of matstsoth is reckoned as one of the three pilgrimage festivals, though strictly the pilgrimage was connected with the Passover portion and the first day of the festival.<P>During the entire week additional sacrifices were offered in the temple: an offering made by fire and a burnt offering, 2 young bullocks, 1 ram, 7 lambs of the first year without blemish, together with meal offerings and drink offerings and a goat for a sin offering.<P>5. The \'Omer:<P>During the week of the matstsoth festival comes the beginning of the barley harvest in Palestine (Menachoth 65b) which lasts from the end of March in the low Jordan valley to the beginning of May in the elevated portions. The time of the putting-in of the sickle to the standing grain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,9);">De 16:9</a>) and of bringing the sheaf of the peace offering is spoken of as the morrow after the Sabbath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,15);">Le 23:15</a>), that is, according to the Jewish tradition, the day after the first day, or rest-day, of the Passover (Mend. 65b; Meg Ta\'an. 1; Josephus, Ant, III, x, 5), and according to Samaritan and Boethusian traditions and the modern Karites the Sunday after the Passover. At this time a wave offering is made of a sheaf, followed by an offering of a lamb with a meal and drink offering, and only thereafter might the new grain be eaten. From this day 7 weeks are counted to fix the date of Pentecost, the celebration connected with the wheat harvest. It is of course perfectly natural for an agricultural people to celebrate the turning-points of the agricultural year in connection with their traditional festivals. Indeed, the Jewish liturgy of today retains in the Passover service the Prayer of Dew (Tal) which grew up in Palestine on the basis of the needs of an agricultural people.<P>6. Non-traditional Theories:<P>Many writers, however, eager to explain the entire festival as originally an agricultural feast (presumably a Canaanitic one, though there is not a shred of evidence that the Canaanites had such a festival), have seized upon the \'omer, or sheaf offering, as the basis of the hagh (festival), and have attempted to explain the matstsoth as bread hastily baked in the busy harvest times, or as bread quickly baked from the freshly exempted first-fruits. Wherein these theories are superior to the traditional explanation so consistently adhered to throughout the Pentateuch it is difficult to see. In a similar vein, it has been attempted to connect the Passover with the sacrifice or redemption of the firstborn of man and beast (both institutions being traditionally traced to the judgment on the firstborn of Egypt, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,\'11-13\');">Ex 13:11-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,29,30);">22:29,30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,19);">23:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,19,20);">34:19,20</a>), so as to characterize the Passover as a festival of pastoral origin. Excepting for the multiplication of highly ingenious guesses, very little that is positive has been added to our knowledge of the Passover by this theory.<P>7. The Higher Criticism:<P>The Pentateuch speaks of the Passover in many contexts and naturally with constantly varying emphasis. Thus the story of the Exodus it is natural to expect fewer ritual details than in a manual of temple services; again, according to the view here taken, we must distinguish between the pecach mitsrayim and the pecach doroth. Nevertheless, great stress is laid on the variations in the several accounts, by certain groups of critics, on the basis of which they seek to support their several theories of the composition of the Pentateuch or Hexateuch. Without entering into this controversy, it will be sufficient here to enumerate and classify all the discrepancies said to exist in the several Passover passages, together with such explanations as have been suggested. These discrepancies, so called, are of three kinds:<P>(1) mere omissions,<P>(2) differences of emphasis, and<P>(3) conflicting statements.<P>The letters, J, E, D, P and H will here be used to designate passages assigned to the various sources by the higher criticism of today merely for the sake of comparison.<P>(1) There is nothing remarkable about the omission of the daily sacrifices from all passages except <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,8);">Le 23:8</a> (H) and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,19);">Nu 28:19</a> (P), nor in the omission of a specific reference to the holy convocation on the first day in the contexts of <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,8);">De 16:8</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,6);">Ex 13:6</a>, nor even in the omission of reference to a central sanctuary in passages other than <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,\'1-\');">De 16</a>. Neither can any significance be attached to the fact that the precise day is not specified in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'1-\');">Ex 23</a> (E) where the appointed day is spoken of, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,15);">Le 23:15</a> (H) where the date can be figured out from the date of Pentecost there given.<P>(2) As to emphasis, it is said that the socalled Elohist Covenant (E) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'1-\');">Ex 23</a>) has no reference to the Passover, as it speaks only of matstsh in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,15);">Ex 23:15</a>, in which this festival is spoken of together with the other reghalim or pilgrimage festivals. The so-called Jehovistic source (Jahwist) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'18-21\',25);">Ex 34:18-21,25</a>) is said to subordinate the Passover to matstsoth, the great feast of the Jehovistic history (JE) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'21-27\',\'29-36\',38,39);">Ex 12:21-27,29-36,38,39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,\'3-16\');">13:3-16</a>); in Deuteronomy (D) the Passover is said to predominate over matstsoth, while in Leviticus (P and H) it is said to be of first importance. JE and P emphasize the historical importance of the day. Whether these differences in emphasis mean much more than that the relative amount of attention paid to the paschal sacrifice, as compared with matstsoth, depends on the context, is of course the fundamental question of the higher criticism; it is not answered by pointing out that the differences of emphasis exist.<P>(3) Of the actual conflicts, we have already seen that the use of the words "flock" and "herd" in Deuteronomy and Hebrew bashal are open to explanation, and also that the use of the matstsoth at the original Passover is not inconsistent with the historical reason for the feast of matstsoth<74>it is not necessary to suppose that matstsoth were invented through the necessity of the Hebrews on their journey. There is, however, one apparent discrepancy in the Biblical narrative that seems to weaken rather than help the position of those critics who would ascribe very late dates to the passages which we have cited: Why does Ezekiel\'s ideal scheme provide sacrifices for the Passover different from those prescribed in the so-called P ascribed to the same period (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,21);">Eze 45:21</a>)?<P>8. Historical Celebrations: Old Testament Times:<P>The children of Israel began the keeping of the Passover in its due season according to all its ordinances in the wilderness of Sinai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',9,5);">Nu 9:5</a>). In the very beginning of their national life in Palestine we find them celebrating the Passover under the leadership of Joshua in the plains of Jericho (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,10);">Jos 5:10</a>). History records but few later celebrations in Palestine, but there are enough intimations to indicate that it was frequently if not regularly observed. Thus Solomon offered sacrifices three times a year upon the altar which he had built to Yahweh, at the appointed seasons, including the Feast of Unleavened Bread (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,25);">1Ki 9:25</a> equals <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',8,13);">2Ch 8:13</a>). The later prophets speak of appointed seasons for pilgrimages and sacrifices (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,\'12-14\');">Isa 1:12-14</a>), and occasionally perhaps refer to a Passover celebration (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,29);">Isa 30:29</a>, bearing in mind that the Passover is the only night-feast of which we have any record). In Hezekiah\'s time the Passover had fallen into such a state of desuetude that neither the priests nor the people were prepared for the king\'s urgent appeal to observe it. Nevertheless, he was able to bring together a large concourse in Jerusalem during the 2nd month and institute a more joyful observance than any other recorded since the days of Solomon. In the 18th year of King Josiah, however, there was celebrated the most memorable Passover, presumably in the matter of conformity to rule, since the days of the Judges (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,21);">2Ki 23:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,1);">2Ch 35:1</a>). The continued observance of the feast to the days of the exile is attested by Ezekiel\'s interest in it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,18);">Eze 45:18</a>). In post-exilic times it was probably observed more scrupulously than ever before (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,19);">Ezr 6:19</a>).<P>9. Historical Celebrations: New Testament Times:<P>Further evidence, if any were needed, of the importance of the Passover in the life of the Jews of the second temple is found in the Talmud, which devotes to this subject an entire tractate, Pecachim on which we have both Babylonian and Palestine gemara\'. These are devoted to the sacrificial side and to the minutiae of searching out and destroying leaven, what constitutes leaven, and similar questions, instruction in which the children of Israel sought for 30 days before the Passover. Josephus speaks of the festival often (Ant., II, xiv, 6; III, x, 5; IX, iv, 8; XIV, ii, 2; XVII, ix, 3; BJ, II, i, 3; V, iii, 1; VI, ix, 3). Besides repeating the details already explained in the Bible, he tells of the innumerable multitudes that came for the Passover to Jerusalem out of the country and even from beyond its limits. He estimates that in one year in the days of Cestius, 256,500 lambs were slaughtered and that at least 10 men were counted to each. (This estimate of course includes the regular population of Jerusalem. But even then it is doubtless exaggerated.) The New Testament bears testimony, likewise, to the coming of great multitudes to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,55);">Joh 11:55</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,13);">Joh 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,4);">6:4</a>). At this great festival even the Roman officers released prisoners in recognition of the people\'s celebration. Travel and other ordinary pursuits were no doubt suspended (Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,3);">Ac 12:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,6);">20:6</a>). Naturally the details were impressed on the minds of the people and lent themselves to symbolic and homiletic purposes (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,7);">1Co 5:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,\'34-36\');">Joh 19:34-36</a>, where the paschal lamb is made to typify Jesus; and <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,28);">Heb 11:28</a>). The best-known instance of such symbolic use is the institution of the Eucharist on the basis of the paschal meal. Some doubt exists as to Whether the Last Supper was the paschal meal or not. According to the Synoptic Gospels, it was (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,7);">Lu 22:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,17);">Mt 26:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,12);">Mr 14:12</a>); while according to John, the Passover was to be eaten some time following the Last Supper (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,28);">Joh 18:28</a>). Various harmonizations of these passages have been suggested, the most in genious, probably, being on theory that when the Passover fell on Friday night, the Pharisees ate the meal on Thursday and the Sadducees on Friday, and that Jesus followed the custom of the Pharisees (Chwolson, Das letzte Passahmal Jesu, 2nd edition, Petersburg, 1904). Up to the Nicene Council in the year 325, the church observed Easter on the Jewish Passover. Thereafter it took precautions to separate the two, condemning their confusion as Arianism.<P>10. The Jewish Passover:<P>After the destruction of the temple the Passover became a home service. The paschal lamb was no longer included. Only the Samaritans have continued this rite to this day. In the Jewish home a roasted bone is placed on the table in memory of the rite, and other articles symbolic of the Passover are placed beside it: such as a roasted egg, said to be in memory of the free-will offering; a sauce called charoceth, said to resemble the mortar of Egypt; salt water, for the symbolic dipping (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,23);">Mt 26:23</a>); the bitter herbs and the matstsoth. The cedher (program) is as follows: sanctification; washing of the hands; dipping and dividing the parsley; breaking and setting aside a piece of matstsah to be distributed and eaten at the end of the supper; reading of the haggadhah shel pecach, a poetic narrative of the Exodus, in answer to four questions asked by the youngest child in compliance with the Biblical command found 3 times in Exodus and once in Deuteronomy, "Thou shalt tell thy son on that day"; washing the hands for eating; grace before eating; tasting the matstsah; tasting the bitter herbs; eating of them together; the meal; partaking of the matstsah that had been set aside as \'aphiqomen or dessert; grace after meat; Hallel; request that the service be accepted. Thereafter folk-songs are sung to traditional melodies, and poems recited, many of which have allegorical meanings. A cup of wine is used at the sanctification and another at grace, in addition to which two other cups have been added, the 4 according to the Mishna (Pecachim x.1) symbolizing the 4 words employed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,6,7);">Ex 6:6,7</a> for the delivery of Israel from Egypt. Instead of eating in haste, as in the Egyptian Passover, it is customary to recline or lean at this meal in token of Israel\'s freedom.<P>The prohibition against leaven is strictly observed. The searching for hidden leaven on the evening before the Passover and its destruction in the morning have become formal ceremonies for which appropriate blessings and declarations have been included in the liturgy since the days when Aramaic was the vernacular of the Jews. As in the case of other festivals, the Jews have doubled the days of holy convocation, and have added a semi-holiday after the last day, the so-called \'iccur chagh, in token of their love for the ordained celebration and their loathness to depart from it.``81';
isbe[6728]='Pastor`pas\'-ter (ro\'eh; poimen; literally, a helper, or feeder of the sheep (the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,8);">Jer 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,15);">3:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,21);">10:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',12,10);">12:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,16);">17:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,22);">22:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,1,2);">23:1,2</a>, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,11);">Eph 4:11</a>, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American))): Besides the literal sense the word has now a figurative meaning and refers to the minister appointed over a congregation. This latter meaning is recognized in the translation of the King James Version.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MINISTRY">MINISTRY</a>`1';
isbe[6729]='Pastoral Epistles`pas\'-tor-al,<P><b>I. GENUINENESS</b><P class="in15">1. External Evidence<P class="in15">2. Genuineness Questioned<P><b>II. ALLEGED DIFFICULTIES AGAINST PAULINE AUTHORSHIP</b><P class="in15">1. Relative to Paul\'s Experiences<P class="in30">(1) Data in 1 Timothy<P class="in30">(2) Data in 2 Timothy<P class="in30">(3) Data in Titus<P class="in15">2. Subject-Matter Post-Pauline <P class="in30">(1) Difficulty Regarding Church Organization<P class="in30">(2) The Doctrinal Difficulty<P class="in30">3. Difficulty Relative to Language<P class="in15">4. Is There "Another Gospel" in the Pastorals?<P><b>III. DATE AND ORDER</b><P class="in15">1. Date of the Epistles<P class="in15">2. Their Order<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The First and Second Epistles to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus form a distinct group among the letters written by Paul, and are now known as the Pastoral Epistles because they were addressed to two Christian ministers. When Timothy and Titus received these epistles they were not acting, as they had previously done, as missionaries or itinerant evangelists, but had been left by Paul in charge of churches; the former having the oversight of the church in Ephesus, and the latter having the care of the churches in the island of Crete. The Pastoral Epistles were written to guide them in the discharge of the duties devolving upon them as Christian pastors. Such is a general description of these epistles. In each of them, however, there is a great deal more than is covered or implied by the designation, "Pastoral"<22>much that is personal, and much also that is concerned with Christian faith and doctrine and practice generally.<P>I. Genuineness.<P>1. External Evidence:<P>In regard to the genuineness of the epistles there is abundant external attestation. Allusions to them are found in the writings of Clement and Polycarp. In the middle of the 2nd century the epistles were recognized as Pauline in authorship, and were freely quoted.<P>"Marcion indeed rejected them, and Tatian is supposed to have rejected those to Timothy. But, as Jerome states in the preface to his Commentary on Titus, these heretics rejected the epistles, not on critical grounds, but merely because they disliked their teaching. He says they used no argument, but merely asserted, This is Paul\'s, This is not Paul\'s. It is obvious that men holding such opinions as Marcion and Tatian held, would not willingly ascribe authority to epistles which condemned asceticism. So far, then, as the early church can guarantee to us the authenticity of writings ascribed to Paul, the Pastoral Epistles are guaranteed" (Marcus Dods, Introduction to the New Testament, 167).<P>The external evidence is all in favor of the reception of these epistles., which were known not only to Clement and Polycarp, but also to Irenaeus, Tertullian, the author of the Epistle to the churches of Vienne and Lyons, and Theophilus of Antioch. The evidence of Polycarp, who died in 167 AD, is remarkably strong. He says, "The love of money is the beginning of all trouble, knowing...that we brought nothing into the world, neither can carry anything out" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,7,10);">1Ti 6:7,10</a>). It would be difficult to overthrow testimony of this nature.<P>2. Genuineness Questioned:<P>The decision of certain critics to reject the Pastoral Epistles as documents not from the hand of Paul, "is not reached on the external evidence, which is perhaps as early an attestation as can be reasonably expected. They are included in the Muratorian Canon, and quoted by Irenaeus and later writers as Paul\'s" (A.S. Peake, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 60). This admission is satisfactory. In recent times, however, the authenticity of these epistles has been called in question by Schmidt, Schleiermacher, Baur, Renan, and many others. Baur asserted that they were written for the purpose of combating the Gnosticism of the 2nd century, and of defending the church from it by means of ecclesiastical organization, and that the date of their composition was about the year 150 AD.<P>II. Alleged Difficulties against Pauline Authorship.<P>Various difficulties have been alleged against the reception of the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline. The chief of these are:<P>(1) the difficulty of finding any place for these letters in the life of Paul, as that is recorded in the Acts and in the Pauline Epistles written before the Pastorals;<P>(2) the fact that there are said to be in them indications of an ecclesiastical organization, and of a development of doctrine, both orthodox and heretical, considerably in advance of the Pauline age;<P>(3) that the language of the epistles is, to a large extent, different from that in the accepted epistles; (4) the "most decisive" of all the arguments against the Pauline authorship<69>so writes Dr. A.C. McGiffert (A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, 402)<29>is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul."<P>Where can a place be found for these epistles, in the life of Paul? The indications of the date of their composition given in the epistles themselves are these.<P>1. Relative to Paul\'s Experiences:<P>(1) Data in 1 Timothy<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,3);">1Ti 1:3</a> Paul had gone from Ephesus to Macedonia, and had left Timothy in Ephesus in charge of the church there. In the Acts and in the previously written Pauline epistles, it is impossible to find such events or such a state of matters as will satisfy these requirements. Paul had previously been in Ephesus, on several occasions. His 1st visit to that city is recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,\'19-21\');">Ac 18:19-21</a>. On that occasion he went from Ephesus, not into Macedonia, but into Syria. His 2nd visit was his 3 years\' residence in Ephesus, as narrated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,\'1-\');">Ac 19</a>; and when he left the city, he had, previous to his own departure from it, already sent Timothy into Macedonia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,22);">19:22</A>)<29>a state of matters exactly the reverse of that described in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,3);">1Ti 1:3</a>. Timothy soon rejoined Paul, and so far was he from being left in Ephesus then, that he was in Paul\'s company on the remainder of his journey toward Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,4);">Ac 20:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,1);">2Co 1:1</a>).<P>No place therefore in Paul\'s life, previous to his arrest in Jerusalem, and his first Roman imprisonment, can be found, which satisfies the requirements of the situation described in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,3);">1Ti 1:3</a>. "It is impossible, unless we assume a second Roman imprisonment, to reconcile the various historical notices which the epistle (2 Timothy) contains" (McGiffert, op. cit., 407).<P>In addition to this, the language used by the apostle at Miletus, when he addressed the elders of the Ephesian church (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,30);">Ac 20:30</a>) about the men speaking perverse things, who should arise among them, showed that these false teachers had not made their appearance at that time. There is, for this reason alone, no place for the Pastoral Epistles in Paul\'s life, previous to his arrest in Jerusalem. But Paul\'s life did not end at the termination of his first Roman imprisonment; and this one fact gives ample room to satisfy all the conditions, as these are found in the three Pastorals.<P>Those who deny the Pauline authorship of these epistles also deny that he was released from what, in this article, is termed his 1st Roman imprisonment. But a denial of this latter statement is an assumption quite unwarranted and unproved. It assumes that Paul was not set free, simply because there is no record of this in the Acts. But the Acts is, on the very face of it, an incomplete or unfinished record; that is, it brings the narrative to a certain point, and then breaks off, evidently for the reason which Sir W.M. Ramsay demonstrates, that Luke meant to write a sequel to that book<6F>a purpose, however, which he was unable, owing to some cause now unknown, to carry into execution. The purpose of the Acts, as Ramsay shows (St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 23, 308), is to lead up to the release of Paul, and to show that the Christian faith was not a forbidden or illegal religion, but that the formal impeachment of the apostle before the supreme court of the empire ended in his being set at liberty, and thus there was established the fact that the faith of Jesus Christ was not, at that time, contrary to Roman law. "The Pauline authorship...can be maintained only on the basis of a hypothetical reconstruction, either of an entire period subsequent to the Roman imprisonment, or of the events within some period known to us" (McGiffert, op. cit., 410). The one fact that Paul was set free after his 1st Roman imprisonment gives the environment which fits exactly all the requirements of the Pastoral Epistles.<P>Attention should be directed to the facts and to the conclusion stated in the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRAETORIUM">PRAETORIUM</A> (which see), Mommsen having shown that the words, "My bonds became manifest in Christ throughout the whole praetorian guard" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,13);">Php 1:13</a>), mean that at the time when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, the case against him had already come before the supreme court of appeal in Rome, that it had been partly heard, and that the impression made by the prisoner upon his judges was so favorable, that he expected soon to be set free.<P>The indications to be drawn from other expressions in three of the epistles of the Roman captivity<74>Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon<6F>are to the same effect. Thus, writing to the Philippians, he says that he hopes to send Timothy to them, so soon as he sees how matters go with him, and that he trusts in the Lord that he himself will visit them shortly. And again, writing to his friend Philemon in the city of Colosse, he asks him to prepare him a lodging, for he trusts that through the prayers of the Colossians, he will be granted to them.<P>These anticipations of acquittal and of departure from Rome are remarkable, and do not in any degree coincide with the idea that Paul was not set free but was condemned and put to death at that time. "It is obvious that the importance of the trial is intelligible only if Paul was acquitted. That he was acquitted follows from the Pastoral Epistles with certainty for all who admit their genuineness; while even they who deny their Pauline origin must allow that they imply an early belief in historical details which are not consistent with Paul\'s journeys before his trial, and must either be pure inventions or events that occurred on later journeys....If he was acquitted, the issue of the trial was a formal decision by the supreme court of the empire that it was permissible to preach Christianity; the trial, therefore, was really a charter of religious liberty, and therein lies its immense importance. It was indeed overturned by later decisions of the supreme court; but its existence was a highly important fact for the Christians" (Ramsay, op. cit., 308). "That he was acquitted is demanded both by the plan evident in Acts and by other reasons well stated by others" (ibid., 360).<P>It should also be observed that there is the direct and corroborative evidence of Paul\'s release, afforded by such writers as Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephrem Syriac., Chrysostom and Theodoret, all of whom speak of Paul\'s going to Spain. Jerome (Vir. Ill., 5) gives it as a matter of personal knowledge that Paul traveled as far as Spain. But there is more important evidence still. In the Muratorian Canon, 1,37, there are the words, "profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis" ("the journey of Paul as he journeyed from Rome to Spain"). Clement also in the epistle from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth, which was written not later than the year 96 AD, says in reference to Paul, "Having taught righteousness to the whole world, and having gone to the extremity of the west (epi to terma tes duseos elthon) and having borne witness before the rulers, so was he released from the world and went to the holy place, being the greatest example of endurance." The words, "having gone to the extremity of the west," should be specially noticed. Clement was in Rome when he wrote this, and, accordingly, the natural import of the words is that Paul went to the limit of the western half of then known world, or in other words, to the western boundary of the lands bordering the Mediterranean, that is, to Spain.<P>Now Paul never had been in Spain previous to his arrest in Jerusalem, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,24,28);">Ro 15:24,28</a> he had twice expressed his intention to go there. These independent testimonies, of Clement and of the Muratorian Canon, of the fact that after Paul\'s arrest in Jerusalem he did carry into execution his purpose to visit Spain, are entitled to great weight. They involve, of course, the fact that he was acquitted after his 1st Roman imprisonment.<P>Having been set free, Paul could not do otherwise than send Timothy to Philippi, and himself also go there, as he had already promised when he wrote to the Philippian church (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,19,24);">Php 2:19,24</a>). As a matter of course he would also resume his apostolic journeys for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel. There is now ample room in his life for the Pastoral Epistles, and they give most interesting details of his further labors. The historical and geographical requirements in 1 Timothy are, in this way, easily satisfied. It was no great distance to Ephesus from Philippi and Colosse, where he had promised that he would "come shortly."<P>(2) Data in 2 Timothy<P>The requirements in 2 Timothy are (a) that Paul had recently been at Troas, at Corinth, and at Miletus, each of which he mentions (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,13,20);">2Ti 4:13,20</a>); (b) that when he wrote the epistles he was in Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,17);">1:17</A>); (c) that he was a prisoner for the cause of the gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,8);">1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,9);">2:9</A>), and had once already appeared before the emperor\'s supreme court (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,16,17);">4:16,17</a>); (d) that he had then escaped condemnation, but that he had reason to believe that on the next hearing of his case the verdict would be given against him, and that he expected it could not be long till execution took place (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,6);">4:6</a>); (e) that he hoped that Timothy would be able to come from Ephesus to see him at Rome before the end (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,9,21);">4:9,21</A>). These requirements cannot be made to agree or coincide with the first Roman captivity, but they do agree perfectly with the facts of the apostle\'s release and his subsequent second imprisonment in that city.<P>(3) Data in Titus<P>The data given in the Epistle to Titus are<P>(a) that Paul had been in Crete, and that Titus had been with him there, and had been left behind in that island, when Paul sailed from its shores, Titus being charged with the oversight of the churches there (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,5);">Tit 1:5</a>); and<P>(b) that Paul meant to spend the next winter at Nicopolis (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,12);">3:12</a>).<P>It is simply impossible to locate these events in the recorded life of Paul, as that is found in the other epistles, and in the Acts. But they agree perfectly with his liberation after his first Roman imprisonment. "As there is then no historical evidence that Paul did not survive the year 64, and as these Pastoral Epistles were recognized as Pauline in the immediately succeeding age, we may legitimately accept them as evidence that Paul did survive the year 64<36>that he was acquitted, resumed his missionary labors, was again arrested and brought to Rome, and from this second imprisonment wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy<68>his last extant writing" (Dods, Introduction to the New Testament, 172).<P>2. Subject-Matter, Post-Pauline:<P>The second difficulty alleged against the acceptance of these epistles as Pauline is that there are said to exist in them indications of an ecclesiastical organization and of a doctrinal development, both orthodox and heretical, considerably later than those of the Pauline age.<P>(1) Difficulty Regarding Church Organization<P>The first statement, that the epistles imply an ecclesiastical organization in advance of the time when Paul lived, is one which cannot be maintained in view of the facts disclosed in the epistles themselves. For directions are given to Timothy and to Titus in regard to the moral and other characteristics necessary in those who are to be ordained as bishops, elders, and deacons. In the 2nd century the outstanding feature of ecclesiastical organization was the development of monarchical episcopacy, but the Pastoral Epistles show a presbyterial administration. The office held by Timothy in Ephesus and by Titus in Crete was, as the epistles themselves show, of a temporary character. The directions which Paul gives to Timothy and Titus in regard to the ordaining of presbyters in every church are in agreement with similar notices found elsewhere in the New Testament, and do not coincide with the state of church organization as that existed in the 2nd century, the period when, objectors to the genuineness of the epistles assert, they were composed. "Everyone acquainted with ancient literature, particularly the literature of the ancient church, knows that a forger or fabricator of those times could not possibly have avoided anachronisms" (Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, II, 93). But the ecclesiastical arrangements in the Pastoral Epistles coincide in all points with the state of matters as it is found in the church in the time of the apostles, as that is described in the Acts and elsewhere in the New Testament.<P>It seems an error to suppose, as has often been done, that these epistles contain the germ of monarchical episcopacy; for the Christian church had already, from the day of Pentecost, existed as a society with special officers for the functions of extension, discipline and administration. The church in the Pastoral Epistles is a visible society, as it always was. Its organization therefore had come to be of the greatest importance, and especially so in the matter of maintaining and handing down the true faith; the church accordingly is described as "the pillar and stay of the truth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,15);">1Ti 3:15</a> margin), that is, the immovable depository of the Divine revelation.<P>(2) The Doctrinal Difficulty<P>The other statement, that the epistles show a doctrinal development out of harmony with the Pauline age is best viewed by an examination of what the epistles actually say.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,20);">1Ti 6:20</a>, Paul speaks of profane and vain babblings and oppositions of gnosis (the Revised Version (British and American) "knowledge," the King James Version "science") falsely so called. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,9);">Tit 3:9</a>, he tells Titus to avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions and strivings about the law. These phrases have been held to be allusions to the tenets of Marcion, and to those of some of the Gnostic sects. There are also other expressions, such as fables and endless genealogies (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,3,4);">1Ti 1:3,4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,3);">6:3</a>), words to no profit but the subverting of the hearer (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,14);">2Ti 2:14</a>), foolish and unlearned questions which do gender strifes (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,23);">2Ti 2:23</a>), questions and strifes of words (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,4,5);">1Ti 6:4,5</a>), discussions which lead to nothing but word-battles and profane babbling. Such are the expressions which Paul uses. These, taken with what is even more clearly stated in the Epistle to the Colossians, certainly point to an incipient Gnosticism. But had the writer of the Pastoral Epistles been combating the Gnosticism of the 2nd century, it would not have been phrases like these that he would have employed, but others much more definite. Godet, quoted by Dods (Intro, 175), writes, "The danger here is of substituting intellectualism in religion for piety of heart and life. Had the writer been a Christian of the 2nd century, trying, under the name of Paul, to stigmatize the Gnostic systems, he would certainly have used much stronger expressions to describe their character and influence."<P>It should be observed that the false teachers described in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,\'6-9\',13);">2Ti 3:6-9,13</a>, as well as in other places in these epistles, were persons who taught that the Mosaic Law was binding upon all Christians. They laid stress upon rabbinic myths, upon investigations and disputations about genealogies and specific legal requirements of the Old Testament. What they taught was a form of piously sounding doctrine assuming to be Christian, but which was really rabbinism.<P>"For a pseudo-Paul in the post-apostolic age<67>when Christians of Jewish birth had become more and more exceptions in the Gentile Christian church<63>to have invented a description of and vigorously to have opposed the heterodidaskaloi, who did not exist in his own age, and who were without parallel in the earlier epistles of Paul, would have been to expose himself to ridicule without apparent purpose or meaning" (Zahn, Introduction, II, 117). "A comparison of the statements in these epistles about various kinds of false doctrine, and of those portions of the same that deal with the organization and officers of the church, with conditions actually existing in the church, especially the church of Asia Minor, at the beginning and during the course of the 2nd century, proves, just as clearly as does the external evidence, that they must have been written at latest before the year 100. But they could not have been written during the first two decades after Paul\'s death, because of the character of the references to persons, facts and conditions in Paul\'s lifetime and his own personal history, and because of the impossibility on this assumption of discovering a plausible motive for their forgery. Consequently the claim that they are post-Pauline, and contain matter which is un-Pauline, is to be treated with the greatest suspicion" (Zahn, op. cit., II, 118).<P>3. Difficulty Relative to Language:<P>The third difficulty alleged against the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is connected with the language employed, which is said to be, to a large extent, different from that in the accepted epistles. The facts in regard to this matter are that in 1 Timothy there are 82 words not found elsewhere in the New Testament; in 2 Timothy there are 53 such words, and in Titus there are 33. But, while the total of such words in the three epistles is 168, this number, large though it appears, may be compared with the words used only once in the other Epistles of Paul. In Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians and Philemon, the words of this description are 627 in number. So nothing can be built upon the fact of the 168 peculiar words in the Pastoral Epistles, that can safely be alleged as proof against their Pauline authorship. The special subjects treated in these epistles required adequate language, a requirement and a claim which would not be refused in the case of any ordinary author.<P>The objections to the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, based upon the dissimilarity of diction in them and in Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, cease to exist when theory is no longer persisted in, that the nucleus of the Pastoral Epistles was composed during the Roman imprisonment, which, according to this theory ended, not in the apostle\'s release, but in his execution. The fact that he was writing to intimate and beloved friends, both on personal matters and on the subject of church organization, and on that of incipient Gnosticism, which was troubling the churches of Asia Minor, made it essential that he should, to a large extent, use a different vocabulary.<P>4. Is There "Another Gospel" in the Pastorals?:<P>The "most decisive" of all the arguments against the Pauline authorship is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul" (McGiffert, A History of Christianity, 402). "For the most part," Dr. McGiffert writes, "there is no trace whatever of the great fundamental truth of Paul\'s gospel<65>death unto the flesh and life in the Spirit." Now this is not so, for the passages which Dr. McGiffert himself gives in a footnote (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,\'9-11\');">2Ti 1:9-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,11);">2:11</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,\'4-7\');">Tit 3:4-7</a>), as well as other references, do most certainly refer to this very aspect of the gospel. For example, the passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,\'1-\');">2Ti 2</a> contains these words, "If we died with him (Christ), we shall also live with him." What is this but the great truth of the union of the Christian believer with Christ? The believer is one with Christ in His death, one with Him now as He lives and reigns. The objection, therefore, which is "most decisive of all," is one which is not true in point of fact. Dr. McGiffert also charges the author of the Pastoral Epistles as being "one who understood by resurrection nothing else than the resurrection of the fleshly body" (p. 430). The body of our Lord was raised from the dead, but how very unjust this accusation is, is evident from such a passage as <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,16);">1Ti 3:16</a>,<p class="in15"> "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness;<br>He who was manifested in the flesh,<br>Justified in the Spirit,<br>Seen of angels,<br>Preached among the nations,<br>Believed on in the world,<br>Received up in glory."<P>Charges of this nature are unsupported by evidence, and are of the kind on which Dr. A.S. Peake (A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 71) bases his rejection of the Pauline authorship<69>except for a Pauline nucleus<75>that he "feels clear." More than an ipse dixit of this sort is needed.<P>The theory that the Pastoral Epistles are based upon genuine letters or notes of Paul to Timothy and Titus is thus advocated by Peake, McGiffert, Moffatt and many others. It bears very hard upon 1 Timothy. "In 1 Timothy not a single verse can be indicated, which clearly bears the stamp of Pauline origin" (Peake, op. cit., 70). "We may fairly conclude then in agreement with many modern scholars that we have here, in the Pastoral Epistles, authentic letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus, worked over and enlarged by another hand" (McGiffert, op. cit., 405). In regard to 1 Timothy he writes, "It is very likely that there are scattered fragments of the original epistle in 1 Timothy, as for instance in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,23);">1:23</A>. But it is difficult to find anything which we can be confident was written by Paul" (p. 407).<P>Dr. McGiffert also alleges that in the Pastoral Epistles, the word "faith" "is not employed in its profound Pauline sense, but is used to signify one of the cardinal virtues, along with love, peace, purity, righteousness, sanctification, patience and meekness." One of the Pauline epistles, with which he contrasts the Pastorals, is the Epistle to the Galatians; and the groundlessness of this charge is evident from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a>, where "faith" is included in the list there given of the fruit of the Spirit, along with love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness and self-control.<P>If the Pastoral Epistles are the work of Paul, then, Dr. McGiffert concludes, Paul had given up that form of the gospel which he had held and taught throughout his life, and descended from the lofty religious plane upon which he had always moved, to the level of mere piety and morality (op. cit., 404). But this charge is not just or reasonable, in view of the fact that the apostle is instructing Timothy and Titus how to combat the views and practices of immoral teachers. Or again, in such a passage as <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,\'12-17\');">1Ti 1:12-17</a> the King James Version, the author of the epistle has not descended from the lofty plane of faith to that of mere piety and morality, when he writes, "The grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."<P>If such be the "most decisive" objection against the Pauline authorship, the other difficulties, as already seen, need not cause alarm, for they resolve themselves into the equally groundless charges that the historical requirements of the epistles cannot be fitted into any part of Paul\'s life, and that the doctrine and ecclesiastical organization do not suit the Apostolic age. These objections have been already referred to.<P>The real difficulty, writes Dr. Peake (A Critical Introduction, 68), is that "the old energy of thought and expression is gone, and the greater smoothness and continuity in the grammar is a poor compensation for the lack of grip and of continuity in the thought." Dr. Peake well and truly says that this statement does not admit of detailed proof. Lack of grip and lack of continuity of thought are not the characteristics of such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,\'9-17\');">1Ti 1:9-17</a>, a passage which will bear comparison with anything in the acknowledged Pauline Epistles; and there are many other similar passages, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,\'11-\');">Tit 2:11</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,\'1-7\');">3:7</a>.<P>What must be said of the dullness of the intelligence of Christian men and of the Christian church as a whole, if they could thus let themselves be imposed upon by epistles which purported to be Paul\'s, but which were not written by him at all, but were the enlargement of a Pauline nucleus? Can it be believed that the church of the 2nd century, the church of the martyrs, was in such a state of mental decrepitude as to receive epistles which were spurious, so far as the greater portion of their contents is concerned? And can it be believed that this idea, so recently originated and so destitute of proof, is andequate explanation of epistles which have been received as Pauline from the earliest times?<P>When placed side by side with sub-apostolic writings like the Didache, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius, "it is difficult to resist the idea which returns upon one with almost every sentence that...the Pastorals are astonishingly superior" (Moffatt, The Historical New Testament, 556). Godet, quoted by R.D. Shaw (The Pauline Epistles, 441), writes, "When one has had enough of the pious amplifications of Clement of Rome, of the ridiculous inanities of Barnabas, of the general oddities of Ignatius, of the well-meant commonplaces of Polycarp, of the intolerable verbiage of Hermas, and of the nameless platitudes of the Didache, and, after this promenade in the first decade of the 2nd century, reverts to our Pastoral Epistles, one will measure the distance that separates the least striking products of the apostolic literature from what has been preserved to us as most eminent in the ancient patristic literature."<P>In the case of some modern critics, the interpolation hypothesis "is their first and last appeal, the easy solution of any difficulty that presents itself to their imaginations. Each writer feels free to give the kaleidoscope a fresh turn, and then records with blissful confidence what are called the latest results....The whole method postulates that a writer must always preserve the same dull monotone or always confine himself to the same transcendental heights....He must see and say everything at once; having had his vision and his dream, he must henceforth be like a star and dwell apart....To be stereotyped is his only salvation....On such principles there is not a writer of note, and there never has been a man in public life, or a student in the stream of a progressive science, large parts of whose sayings and doings could not be proved to be by some one else" (Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, 483).<P>III. Date and Order.<P>1. Date of the Epistles:<P>In regard to the date of these epistles, external and internal evidence alike go to show that they belong to practically the same period. The dates of their composition are separated from each other by not more than three or four years; and the dates of each and all of them must be close to the Neronic persecution (64 AD). If Paul was executed 67 AD (see Ramsay, Paul, 396), there is only a short interval of time between his release in 61 or 62, and his death in 67, that is a period of some 5 or 6 years, during which his later travels took place, and when the Pastoral Epistles were written. "Between the three letters there is an affinity of language, a similarity of thought, and a likeness of errors combated, which prevents our referring any of them to a period much earlier than the others" (Zahn, Introduction, II, 37).<P>2. Their Order:<P>The order in which they were written must have been 1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy. It is universally acknowledged that 2 Timothy is the very last of Paul\'s extant epistles, and the internal evidence of the other two seems to point out 1 Timothy as earlier than Titus.<P>To sum up, the evidence of the early reception of the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline is very strong. "The confident denial of the genuineness of these letters<72>which has been made now for several generations more positively than in the case of any other Pauline epistles<65>has no support from tradition....Traces of their circulation in the church before Marcion\'s time are clearer than those which can be found for Romans and 2 Corinthians" (Zahn, op. cit., II, 85). The internal evidence shows that all three are from the hand of one and the same writer, a writer who makes many personal allusions of a nature which it would be impossible for a forger to invent. It is generally allowed that the personal passages in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,\'15-18\');">2Ti 1:15-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,\'9-22\');">4:9-22</a> are genuine. But if this is so, then it is not possible to cut and carve the epistles into fragments of this kind. Objections dating only a century back are all too feeble to overturn the consistent marks of Pauline authorship found in all three epistles, corroborated as this is by their reception in the church, dating from the very earliest period. The Pastoral Epistles may be used with the utmost confidence, as having genuinely come from the hand of Paul.<P>LITERATURE.<P>R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles; A. S. Peake, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament; A. C. McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age; Theodor Zahn, An Introduction to the New Testament; Marcus Dods, Introduction to the New Testament; Weiss, Einleitung in das New Testament (English translation); C. J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles; Patrick Fairbairn, The Pastoral Epistles; John Ed. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Handbook of the Epistles of Paul to Timothy and Titus; George Salmon, A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament; James Moffatt, The Historical New Testament; Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament; Adolf Julicher, An Introduction to the New Testament; Caspar Rene Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament.<P>The "lives" of Paul may also be consulted, as they contain much that refers to these epistles, i.e. those by Conybeare and Howson, Lewin, Farrar and others. See also Ramsay\'s Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen.``155';
isbe[6730]='Pasturage; Pasture`pas\'-tur-aj, pas\'-tur.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEEP+TENDING">SHEEP TENDING</a>`1';
isbe[6731]='Patara`pat\'-a-ra (ta Patara): A coast city of ancient Lycia, from which, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,1);">Ac 21:1</a>, Paul took a ship for Phoenicia. Because of its excellent harbor, many of the coast trading ships stopped at Patara, which therefore became an important and wealthy port of entry to the towns of the interior. As early as 440 BC autonomous coins were struck there; during the 4th and the 3rd centuries the coinage was interrupted, but was again resumed in 168 BC when Patara joined the Lycian league. Ptolemy Philadelphus enlarged the city, and changed its name to Arsinoe in honor of his wife. The city was celebrated not only as a trading center, but especially for its celebrated oracle of Apollo which is said to have spoken only during the six winter months of the year. Among the ruins there is still to be seen a deep pit with circular steps leading to a seat at the bottom; it is supposed that the pit is the place of the oracle. In the history of early Christianity, Patara took but little part, but it was the home of a bishop, and the birthplace of Nicholas, the patron saint of the sailors of the East. Though born at Patara, Nicholas was a bishop and saint of Myra, a neighboring Lycian city, and there he is said to have been buried. Gelemish is the modern name of the ruin. The walls of the ancient city may still be traced, and the foundations of the temple and castle and other public buildings are visible. The most imposing of the ruins is a triumphal arch bearing the inscription: "Patara the Metropolis of the Lycian Nation." Outside the city walls many sarcophagi may be seen, but the harbor, long ago choked by sand, has been converted into a useless swamp. another at grace, in addition to which two other cups have been added, the 4 according to the Mishna (Pecachim x.1) symbolizing the 4 words employed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,6,7);">Ex 6:6,7</a> for the delivery of Israel from Egypt. Instead of eating in haste, as in the Egyptian Passover, it is customary to recline or lean at this meal in token of Israel\'s freedom.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MYRA">MYRA</a>`7';
isbe[6732]='Pate`pat (qodhqodh): The word usually translated "crown," "crown of the head" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,26);">Ge 49:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,35);">De 28:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,16,20);">33:16,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,25);">2Sa 14:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',2,7);">Job 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,17);">Isa 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,16);">Jer 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,45);">48:45</a>) and "scalp" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,21);">Ps 68:21</a>) is rendered "pate" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,16);">Ps 7:16</a> in agreement with earlier English translators since Coverdale: "His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violence shall come down upon his own pate." The reason for the choice of the word lies evidently in the desire to make the Hebrew parallelism with "head" (ro\'sh) apparent. The same object has, however, been achieved differently in another poetical passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,26);">Ge 49:26</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,16);">De 33:16</a>), namely, by the juxtaposition of "head" and "crown of the head."``106';
isbe[6733]='Path; Pathway`path, path\'-wa (orach, nethibhah, etc.; tribos, trochia):<P>(1) In the Old Testament.<2E>In addition to its obvious literal sense (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,17);">Ge 49:17</a>), it has very frequently a figurative meaning.<P>(a) As applied to man, a course or manner of life: (i) man\'s outward lot in life, his career or destiny, whether of the just man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,7);">Isa 26:7</a>) or of the ungodly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',8,13);">Job 8:13</a>); (ii) frequently in an ethical sense, of men\'s conduct or inward life-purpose, whether it be good or evil (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',2,15);">Pr 2:15</a>), generally accompanied by a term defining the moral quality of the conduct, either an abstract noun (e.g. "the paths of uprightness," <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',2,13);">Pr 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,11);">4:11</a>; "the paths of justice," <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',2,8);">Pr 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,14);">Isa 40:14</a>; "the paths of life," <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,11);">Ps 16:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',2,19);">Pr 2:19</a>), or a concrete adjective or noun (e.g. "crooked paths," <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,8);">Isa 59:8</a>; "the paths of the righteous," <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',2,20);">Pr 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,18);">4:18</a>).<P>(b) The term is also applied to God either (i) of the methods of the Divine Providence, God\'s dealings with men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,10);">Ps 25:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',65,11);">65:11</a>), or (ii) of the principles and maxims of religion and morality divinely revealed to man ("Show me thy ways, O Yahweh, teach me thy paths," <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,4);">Ps 25:4</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,3);">Isa 2:3</a>).<P>(2) In the Apocrypha we have the "paths" of Wisdom (tribos, Baruch 3:21,31); the "path" shown to men by the Law (semita, 2Esdras 14:22); and a man\'s "paths" (tribos, Tobit 4:10).<P>(3) In the New Testament the word occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,3);">Mt 3:3</a> and parallel passages <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,3);">Mr 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,4);">Lu 3:4</a> (of the forerunner\'s work), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,13);">Heb 12:13</a> (in the Old Testament ethical sense).<P>Pathway occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,28);">Pr 12:28</a> (derekh nethibhah) and The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 5:10</span> (atrapos).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WAY">WAY</a>`49';
isbe[6734]='Patheus`pa-the\'-us (Pathaios, Phathaios): One of the Levites who had married a foreign wife (1Esdras 9:23) equals "Pethahiah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,23);">Ezr 10:23</a>.``1';
isbe[6735]='Pathros`path\'-ros (pathros; Egyptian Pata resii, the "South land"; Septuagint ge Pathoures): The Hebrew form of the Egyptian name for Upper Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,11);">Isa 11:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',44,1,15);">Jer 44:1,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,14);">Eze 29:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,14);">30:14</a>).``1';
isbe[6736]='Pathrusim`path-roo\'-sim, path-ru\'-sim (pathruci, "an inhabitant of Pathros"; Septuagint hoi Patrosonieim): The branch of the Egyptians who came from <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PATHROS">PATHROS</A> (which see). They are represented as begotten of Mizraim, "Mizraim begat Zudim....and Pathrusim" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,13);">Ge 10:13</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,11);">1Ch 1:11</a>f).``1';
isbe[6737]='Patience`pa\'-shens (hupomone, makrothumia): "Patience" implies suffering, enduring or waiting, as a determination of the will and not simply under necessity. As such it is an essential Christian virtue to the exercise of which there are many exhortations. We need to "wait patiently" for God, to endure uncomplainingly the various forms of sufferings, wrongs and evils that we meet with, and to bear patiently injustices which we cannot remedy and provocations we cannot remove.<P>The word "patience" does not occur in the Old Testament, but we have "patiently" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',40,1);">Ps 40:1</a> as the translation of qawah, "to wait," "to expect," which word frequently expresses the idea, especially that of waiting on God; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,7);">Ps 37:7</a>, "patiently" ("wait patiently") is the translation of qul, one of the meanings of which is "to wait" or "to hope for" or "to expect" (of <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',35,14);">Job 35:14</a>); "patient" occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',7,8);">Ec 7:8</a>) as the translation of \'erekh ruach, "long of spirit," and (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,11);">Job 6:11</a>) "that I should be patient" (ha\'arikh nephesh). Compare "impatient" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',21,4);">Job 21:4</a>).<P>"Patience" occurs frequently in the Apocrypha, especially in Ecclesiasticus, e.g. 2:14; 16:13; 17:24; 41:2 (hupomone); 5:11 (makrothumia); 29:8 (makrothumeo, the Revised Version (British and American) "long suffering"); in The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 2:19</span>, the Greek word is anexikakia.<P>In the New Testament hupomone carries in it the ideas of endurance, continuance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,15);">Lu 8:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,19);">21:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,3,4);">Ro 5:3,4</a>, the American Standard Revised Version "stedfastness"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,25);">Ro 8:25</a>, etc.).<P>In all places the American Revised Version margin has "stedfastness," except <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,11);">Jas 5:11</a>, where it has "endurance"; makrothumia is translated "patience" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,12);">Heb 6:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,10);">Jas 5:10</a>); makrothumeo, "to bear long" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,26,29);">Mt 18:26,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,7);">Jas 5:7</a>; See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LONGSUFFERING">LONGSUFFERING</A>); the same verb is translated "be patient" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,14);">1Th 5:14</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "longsuffering"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,7,8);">Jas 5:7,8</a>, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "patient"); makrothumos, "patiently" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,3);">Ac 26:3</a>); hupomeno (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,20);">1Pe 2:20</a>); anexikakos is translated "patient" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,4);">2Ti 2:4</a>, the Revised Version (British and American), the King James Version margin, "forbearing"); epieikes, "gentle" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,3);">1Ti 3:3</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "gentle"); hupomeno (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,12);">Ro 12:12</a>, "patient in tribulation"). For "the patient waiting for Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,5);">2Th 3:5</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) has "the patience of Christ."<P>Patience is often hard to gain and to maintain, but, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,5);">Ro 15:5</a>, God is called "the God of patience" (the American Revised Version margin "stedfastness") as being able to grant that grace to those who look to Him and depend on Him for it. It is in reliance on God and acceptance of His will, with trust in His goodness, wisdom and faithfulness, that we are enabled to endure and to hope stedfastly.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOD">GOD</a>`185';
isbe[6738]='Patmos`pat\'-mos (Patomos; Italian: San Giovanni di Patino): A Turkish island of the group Sporades, southwest of Samos, mentioned once in the Bible, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,9);">Re 1:9</a>, "I, John...was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (dia ton logon tou theou kai ten marturian Iesou). The island <span class="noTag">is</span> 10 miles long, and about 6 broad along the northern coast. It is for the most part rocky. The highest part is Mount Elias, which rises to a height of over 800 ft. As in Greece, and in the adjacent mainland of Asia Minor, the land is treeless. Near the city of Patmos there is a good harbor. A famous monastery, Christodulos, was founded on the island in 1088. Near this is a thriving school, attended by students from all parts of the Archipelago. The population of the island <span class="noTag">numbers</span> 3,000, almost entirely Greek. The ancient capital was on an isthmus between the inlets of La Scala and Merika. Many ruins can still be seen. The huge walls of Cyclopean masonry, similar to those at Tiryns, attest their great age. In Roman times Patmos was one of the many places to which Rome banished her exiles. In 95 AD, according to a tradition preserved by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome and others, John was exiled here<72>in the 14th year of the reign of Domitian<61>whence he returned to Ephesus under Nerva (96 AD). The cave in which he is said to have seen his visions is still pointed out to the traveler. Only a small part of the once valuable library in the monastery of Christodulos is left. Just 100 years ago (1814) Mr. E.D. Clark purchased here the manuscript of Plato which is now in the Bodleian Library, the celebrated Clarkianus, a parchment written in the year 895, and admittedly the best of all for the 1st of the 2 volumes into which the works of Plato were divided for convenience. Patmos is mentioned by Thucydides (iii.33), by Pliny (NH, iv.23), and by Strabo (x.5).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Tozer, The Islands of the Aegean (1890), 178-95; Walpole, Turkey (London, 1820), II, 43; E.D. Clark, Travels (London, 1818), VI, 2; Ross, Reisen (Stuttgart, 1840), II; Guerin, Description de l\'Ile de Patmos (Paris, 1856).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+THE+APOSTLE">JOHN, THE APOSTLE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REVELATION+OF+JOHN">REVELATION OF JOHN</a>`71';
isbe[6739]='Patriarch; Patriachs`pa\'-tri-ark, patriarches). The word occurs in the New Testament in application to Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,4);">Heb 7:4</a>), to the sons of Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,8,9);">Ac 7:8,9</a>), and to David (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,29);">Ac 2:29</a>). In Septuagint it is used as the equivalent of the head of the fathers\' house, or of a tribe (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,31);">1Ch 24:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,32);">27:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,12);">2Ch 26:12</a>). Commonly now the term is used of the persons whose names appear in the genealogies and covenant-histories in the periods preceding Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">Ge 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-\');">11</a>, histories of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.; compare "patriarchal dispensation"). The problems connected with the longevity ascribed to the patriarchs in the genealogies and narratives in Genesis are dealt with in special articles.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTEDILUVIAN+PATRIARCHS">ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTEDILUVIANS+(genealogy)">ANTEDILUVIANS (GENEALOGY)</a>`132';
isbe[6740]='Patriarchs, Testaments of the Twelve``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`1';
isbe[6741]='Patrimony`pat\'-ri-mo-ni (ha-\'abhoth, "the fathers"): A word occurring once in English Versions of the Bible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,8);">De 18:8</a>), meaning literally, "the fathers," which, however, is obscure, probably by reason of abbreviation for some phrase, e.g. "house of the fathers." It may indicate "some private source of income possessed by the Levite (who has come up from a country district to the central sanctuary) distinct from what he receives as a priest officiating at the central sanctuary" (Driver, "Deuteronomy," ICC, in the place cited.). Beyond this one occurrence of the word the same idea is conveyed often by other words or phrases: "He divided unto them his living" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,13);">Lu 15:13</a>); "Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,13);">Lu 12:13</a>). Full and specific directions were given in the Law for the division of the patrimony (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',27,\'1-\');">Nu 27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,\'1-\');">De 21</a>, etc.) and for its redemption (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,\'1-12\');">Ru 4:1-12</a>). The idea was frequently used with figurative and spiritual application: the land of Canaan was Israel\'s patrimony, being inherited from Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,11);">Ps 105:11</a>); salvation because of its origin in grace was the believer\'s patrimony (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,\'26-\');">Ga 3:26-4:7</a>). Contrariwise Israel was Yahweh\'s inheritance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,25);">Isa 19:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,14);">63:14</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,12);">Ps 33:12</a>; and the whole earth is the Messiah\'s patrimony, inherited from His Eternal Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,8);">Ps 2:8</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BIRTHRIGHT">BIRTHRIGHT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FAMILY">FAMILY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INHERITANCE">INHERITANCE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROPERTY">PROPERTY</a>`109';
isbe[6742]='Patrobas`pat\'-ro-bas (Patrobas): The name of a member of the Christian community at Rome to whom Paul sent greetings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,14);">Ro 16:14</a>). The name is an abbreviated form of "Patrobius." There was a wealthy freedman of Nero of the same name who was put to death by Galba (Tacitus, History i.49; ii.95). The Patrobas of Paul may have been a dependent of his.``1';
isbe[6743]='Patroclus`pa-tro\'-klus (Patroklos): The father of the Syrian general Nicanor (2Macc 8:9).``1';
isbe[6744]='Pattern`pat\'-ern (tabhnith, "model," mar\'eh, "a vision" or "view"): The Old Testament words translated "pattern" do not necessarily indicate a drawing such as a modern constructor begins with, or the patterns made from these drawings for the guidance of workmen. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,9,40);">Ex 25:9,40</a> the word "idea" or "suggestion" would possibly indicate more distinctly than "pattern" what Moses received in regard to the building of the tabernacle, etc. It is doubtful if any architect\'s drawing was ever made of the temple. It is not the custom in Palestine and Syria today to work from any pattern more concrete than an idea. A man who wants a house calls the builder and says he wants to build so many rooms of such and such dimensions with, for example, a court 10 drahs (arm\'s lengths) wide and 15 drahs long, made of sandstone and plastered inside and out. With these meager instructions the builder starts. The details are worked out as the building proceeds. When a piece of iron or brass work is to be made, the customer by gestures with his hands outlines the form the piece should take. "I want it haik wa haik" ("thus and thus"), he says, and leaves the metal worker to conceive the exact form. It is probable that directions similar to these were given by David to Solomon. "Then David gave Solomon his son the pattern (his conception) of the porch of the temple," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,11);">1Ch 28:11</a>). The above does not apply to Greek and Roman work in Syria. Their workmen, probably mostly native, were trained to work from models. Williams in the Architect, January,1913,says of the works at Baalbek and Palmyra, "There is a machine-like resemblance betokening slavish copying." At the present time native workmen coming under the influence of foreigners are beginning to work from models and plans, but they show little tendency to create models of their own.<P>Three Greek words have been translated in the New Testament: tupos, "type," occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,7);">Tit 2:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,5);">Heb 8:5</a>. In the first instance the Revised Version (British and American) reads "ensample." hupotuposis, "outline," has been similarly translated in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,16);">1Ti 1:16</a>, but "pattern" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,13);">2Ti 1:13</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,24);">Heb 9:24</a> the American Standard Revised Version. antitupos, is rendered "like in pattern." hupodeigma, the King James Version "pattern," is translated in the American Standard Revised Version "copy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,5);">Heb 8:5</a>), "copies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,23);">Heb 9:23</a>). At the time of the translation of the King James Version the word "pattern" meant either the thing to be copied or the copy.``133';
isbe[6745]='Pau`pa\'u.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAI">PAI</a>`1';
isbe[6746]='Paul, the Apostle, 1`pol,<P><b>I. SOURCES</b><P class="in15">1. The Acts<P class="in15">2. The Thirteen Epistles<P class="in30">(1) Pauline Authorship<P class="in30">(2) Lightfoot\'s Grouping<P class="in45">(a) First Group (1 and 2 Thessalonians)<P class="in45">(b) Second Group (1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, <P class="in45">(c) Third Group-(Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians)<P class="in45">(d) Fourth Group (1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy)<P class="in30">(3) Paul\'s Conception of His Epistles<P class="in30">(4) Development in Paul\'s Epistles<P><b>II. MODERN THEORIES ABOUT PAUL</b><P class="in15">1. Criticism Not Infallible<P class="in15">2. The Tubingen Theory<P class="in15">3. Protest against Baur\'s View<P class="in15">4. Successors to Baur<P class="in15">5. Appeal to Comparative Religion<P class="in15">6. The Eschatological Interpretation<P><b>III. CHRONOLOGY OF PAUL\'S CAREER</b><P class="in15">1. Schemes<P class="in15">2. Crucial Points<P class="in30">(1) The Death of Stephen<P class="in30">(2) The Flight from Damascus<P class="in30">(3) The Death of Herod Agrippa I<P class="in30">(4) The First Mission Tour<P class="in30">(5) The First Visit to Corinth<P class="in30">(6) Paul at Troas according to <span class="noTag">Acts 20:6</span> f<P class="in30">(7) Festus Succeeding Felix<P><b>IV. EQUIPMENT</b><P class="in15">1. The City of Tarsus<P class="in15">2. Roman Citizenship<P class="in15">3. Hellenism<P class="in15">4. The Mystery-Religions<P class="in15">5. Judaism<P class="in15">6. Personal Characteristics<P class="in30">(1) Personal Appearance<P class="in30">(2) Natural Endowments<P class="in30">(3) Supernatural Gifts<P class="in15">7. Conversion<P class="in30">(1) Preparation<P class="in30">(2) Experience<P class="in30">(3) Effect on Paul<P><b>V. WORK</b><P class="in15">1. Adjustment<P class="in15">2. Opposition<P class="in15">3. Waiting<P class="in15">4. Opportunity<P class="in15">5. The First Great Mission Campaign<P class="in15">6. The Conflict at Jerusalem<P class="in15">7. The Second Mission Campaign<P class="in15">8. The Third Mission Campaign<P class="in15">9. Five Years a Prisoner<P class="in15">10. Further Travels<P class="in15">11. Last Imprisonment and Death<P><b>VI. GOSPEL</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Sources.<P>1. The Acts:<P>For discussion of the historical value of the <A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACTS+OF+THE+APOSTLES">Acts of the Apostles</a> see the article on that subject. It is only necessary to say here that the view of Sir W.M. Ramsay in general is accepted as to the trustworthiness of Luke, whose authorship of the Acts is accepted and proved by Harnack (Die Apostelgeschichte, 1908; The Acts of the Apostles, translation by Wilkinson, 1909; Neue Untersuch. zur Ap., 1911; The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, translations by Wilkinson, 1911). The proof need not be given again. The same hand appears in the "we" sections and the rest of the book. Even Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 311) admits the Lukan authorship though dating it in 100 AD instead of 60-62 AD, against Harnack. The Acts is written independently of the Epistles of Paul, whether early or late, and supplements in a wonderful way the incidental references in the epistles, though not without lacunae and difficulties.<P>2. The Thirteen Epistles:<P>(1) Pauline Authorship.<P>See the articles on each epistle for detailed criticism. It is here assumed that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul, though Pauline in point of view. One cannot stop to prove every statement in an article like this, else a large book would be needed. Criticism is not an infallible science. One can turn easily from the Hatch-Van Manen article on "Paul" in Encyclopedia Biblica (1902) to the Maclean article on "Paul the Apostle" in the 1-vol HDB (1909). Van-Manen\'s part of the one denies all the thirteen, while Maclean says: "We shall, in what follows, without hesitation use the thirteen epistles as genuine." It is certain that Paul wrote more epistles, or "letters," as Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 225) insists on calling all of Paul\'s epistles. Certainly Philera is a mere "letter," but it is difficult to say as much about Romans. Deissmann (St. Paul, 22) admits that portions of Romans are like "an epistolary letter." At any rate, when Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 64-82) carefully justifies the Pauline authorship of both 1 and 2 Thessalonians, it is clear that the case against them cannot be very strong, especially as Moffatt stands out against the genuineness of Ephesians (op. cit., 393) and the Pastoral Epistles (p. 414).<P>Bartlet, who was once at a loss to know what to do with the Pastorals on theory that Paul was not released from the Roman imprisonment (Apostolic Age, 1899, 200), is now quite willing to face the new facts set forth by Ramsay (Expos, VII, viii-ix, VIII, i), even if it means the admission of a second Roman imprisonment, a view that Bartlet had opposed. He now pleads for "the fresh approach from the side of experience, by men who are in touch with the realities of human nature in all its variety, as well as at home in the historical background of society in the early Roman empire, that has renovated the study of them and taken it out of the old ruts of criticism in which it has moved for the most part in modern times" (Expos, January, 1913, 29). Here Bartlet, again, now eloquently presents the view of common-sense criticism as seen by the practical missionary better than by a life "spent amid the academic associations of a professor\'s chair," though he pauses to note as an exception Professor P. Gardner\'s The Religious Experience of Paul (1912). We may quote Bartlet once more (Expos, January, 1913, 30): "In the recovery of a true point of view a vital element has been the newer conception of Paul himself and so of Paulinism. Paul the doctrinaire theologian, or at least the prophet of a one-sided gospel repeated with fanatical uniformity of emphasis under all conditions, has largely given place to Paul the missionary, full indeed of inspired insight on the basis of a unique experience, but also of practical instinct, the offspring of sympathy with living men of other types of training. When the Pastorals are viewed anew in the light of this idea, half their difficulties disappear." One need not adopt Deissmann\'s rather artificial insistence on "letters" rather than "epistles," and his undue depreciation of Paul\'s intellectual caliber and culture as being more like Amos than Origen (St. Paul, 1912, 6), in order to see the force of this contention for proper understanding of the social environment of Paul. Against Van Manen\'s "historical Paul" who wrote nothing, he places "the historic Paul" who possibly wrote all thirteen. "There is really no trouble except with the letters to Timothy and Titus, and even there the difficulties are perhaps not quite so great as many of our specialists assume" (St. Paul, 15). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PASTORAL+EPISTLES">PASTORAL EPISTLES</a>. Deissmann denies sharply that Paul was an "obscurantist" who corrupted the gospel of Jesus, "the dregs of doctrinaire study of Paul, mostly in the tired brains-of gifted amateurs" (p. 4). But A. Schweitzer boldly proclaims that he alone has the key to Paul and Jesus. It is the "exclusively Jewish eschatological" (Paul and His Interpreters, 1912, ix), conception of Christ\'s gospel that furnishes Schweitzer\'s spring-board (The Quest of the Historical Jesus). Thus he will be able to explain "the Hellenization of the gospel" as mediated through Paul. To do that Schweitzer plows his weary way from Grotius to Holtzmann, and finds that they have all wandered into the wilderness. He is positive that his eschatological discovery will rescue Paul and some of his epistles from the ruin wrought by Steck and Van Manen to whose arguments modern criticism has nothing solid to offer, and the meager negative crumbs offered by Schweitzer ought to be thankfully received (ibid, 249).<P>(2) Lightfoot\'s Grouping.<P>(Compare Biblical Essays, 224.) There is doubt as to the position of Galatians. Some advocates of the South-Galatian theory make it the very earliest of Paul\'s Epistles, even before the Jerusalem Conference in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a>. So Eramet, Commentary on Galatians (1912), ix, who notes (Preface) that his commentary is the first to take this position. But the North Galatian view still has the weight of authority in spite of Ramsay\'s powerful advocacy in his various books (see Historical Commentary on Galatians), as is shown by Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 90ff. Hence, Lightfoot\'s grouping is still the best to use.<P>(a) First Group (1 and 2 Thessalonians):<p>1 and 2 Thessalonians, from Corinth, 52-53 AD. Harnack\'s view that 2 Thessalonians is addressed to a Jewish Christian church in Thessalonica while 1 Thessalonians is addressed to a Gentile church is accepted by Lake (Earlier Epistles of Paul,1911,83ff) but Frame (ICC, 1912, 54) sees no need for this hypothesis. Milligan is clear that 1 Thessalonians precedes 2 Thessalonians (Commentary, 1908, xxxix) and is the earliest of Paul\'s Epistles (p. xxxvi). The accent on eschatology is in accord with the position of the early disciples in the opening chapters of Acts. They belong to Paul\'s stay in Corinth recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,\'1-\');">Ac 18</a>.<P>(b) Second Group (1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans):<P>1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, 55-58 AD. This is the great doctrinal group, the four chief epistles of Baur. They turn about the Judaizing controversy which furnishes the occasion for the expansion of the doctrine of justification by faith in opposition to the legalistic contention of the Judaizing Christians from Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-3\');">Ac 15:1-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-10\');">Ga 2:1-10</a>). The dates of these epistles are not perfectly clear. 1 Corinthians was written shortly before the close of Paul\'s 3 years\' stay at Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,31);">Ac 20:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,8);">1Co 16:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,1);">Ac 20:1</a>f). 2 Corinthians was written a few months later while he was in Macedonia (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,13);">2:13</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,5,13);">7:5,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,\'16-24\');">8:16-24</A>). Romans was written from Corinth (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',16,23);">16:23</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,2);">Ac 20:2</a>f) and sent by Phoebe of Cenchrea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,1);">Ro 16:1</a>). The integrity of Romans is challenged by some who deny in particular that chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,\'1-\');">16</a> belongs to the epistle Moffatt (Intro, 134-38) gives an able, but unconvincing, presentation of the arguments for the addition of the chapter by a later hand. Deissmann (St. Paul, 19) calls <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,\'1-\');">Ro 16</a> "a little letter" addressed to the Christians at Ephesus. Von. Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 78) easily justifies the presence of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,\'1-\');">Ro 16</a> in the Epistle to the Romans: "These greetings, moreover, were certainly intended by Paul to create bonds of fellowship between the Pauline Christians and the Roman community, and to show that he had not written to them quite exclusively in his own name." A common-sense explanation of Paul\'s personal ties in Rome is the fact that as the center of the world\'s life the city drew people thither from all parts of the earth. So, today many a man has friends in New York or London who has never been to either city. A much more serious controversy rages as to the integrity of 2 Corinthians. Semler took <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,\'1-\');">2Co 10-13</a> to be a separate and later ep., because of its difference in tone from <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,\'1-\');">2Co 1-9</a>, but Hausrath put it earlier than chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,\'1-\');">1-9</a>, and made it the letter referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,4);">2:4</a>. He has been followed by many scholars like Schmiedel, Cone, McGiffert, Bacon, Moffatt, Kennedy, Rendall, Peake, Plummer. Von Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 50) accepts the partition-theory of 2 Corinthians heartily: "It may be shown with the highest degree of probability that this letter has come down to us in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,\'1-\');">2Co 10:1-13:10</a>." But the unity of the epistle on theory that the change in tone is a climax to the disobedient element of the church is still maintained with force and justice by Klopper, Zahn, Bachmann, Denhey, Bernard, A. Robertson, Weiss, Menzies. The place of the writing of Galatians turns on its date. Lightfoot (in loc.) argues for Corinth, since it was probably written shortly before Romans. But Moffatt (Introduction, 102) holds tentatively to Ephesus, soon after Paul\'s arrival there from Galatia. So he gives the order: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. In so much doubt it is well to follow Lightfoot\'s logical argument. Galatians leads naturally to Romans, the one hot and passionate, the other calm and contemplative, but both on the same general theme.<P>(c) Third group (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians):<P>Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians. Date 61-63, unless Paul reached Rome several years earlier. This matter depends on the date of the coming of Festus to succeed Felix (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,27);">Ac 24:27</a>). It was once thought to be 60 AD beyond any doubt, but the whole matter is now uncertain. See "Chronology," III, 2, (2), below. At any rate these four epistles were written during the first Roman imprisonment, assuming that he was set free.<P>But it must be noted that quite a respectable group of scholars hold that one or all of these epistles were written from Caesarea (Schultz, Thiersch, Meyer, Hausrath, Sabatier, Reuss, Weiss, Haupt, Spitta, McPherson, Hicks). But the arguments are more specious than convincing. See Hort, Romans and Ephesians, 101-10. There is a growing opinion that Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians were written from Ephesus during a possible imprisonment in Paul\'s stay of 3 years there. So Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 229; Paul, 16); Lisco (Vincula Sanctorum, 1900); M. Albertz (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1910, 551ff); B. W. Bacon (Journal of Biblical Lit., 1910, 181ff). The strongest argument for this position is that Paul apparently did not know personally the readers of Eph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,15);">1:15</a>); compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,4);">Col 1:4</a>. But this objection need not apply if the so-called Ephesian Epistle was a circular letter and if Paul did not visit Colosse and Laodicea during his 3 years at Ephesus. The theory is more attractive at first than on reflection. It throws this group before Romans<6E>a difficult view to concede.<P>But even so, the order of these epistles is by no means certain. It is clear that Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians were sent together. Tychicus was the bearer of Colossians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,7);">4:7</a>f) and Ephesians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,21);">6:21</a>f). Onesimus carried the letter to Philemon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,10,13);">1:10,13</a>) and was also the companion of Tychicus to Colosse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,9);">Col 4:9</a>). So these three epistles went together from Rome. It is commonly assumed that Php was the last of the group of four, and hence later than the other three, because Paul is balancing life and death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,21);">Php 1:21</a>) and is expecting to be set free (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,25);">Php 1:25</a>), but he has the same expectation of freedom when he writes Philemon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,22);">1:22</a>). The absence of Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,20);">Php 2:20</a>) has to be explained on either hypothesis. Moffatt (Introduction, 159) is dogmatic, "as Philippians was certainly the last letter that he wrote," ruling out of court Ephesians, not to say the later Pastoral Epistles. But this conclusion gives Moffatt trouble with the Epistle to the Laodiceans (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,16);">Col 4:16</a>) which he can only call "the enigmatic reference" and cannot follow Rutherford (St. Paul\'s Epistles to Colosse and Laodicea, 1908) in identifying the Laodicean Epistle with Ephesians, as indeed Marcion seems to have done. But the notion that Ephesians was a circular letter designed for more than one church (hence, without personalities) still holds the bulk of modern opinion.<P>Von Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 294) is as dogmatic as Wrede or Van Manen: "All which has hitherto been said concerning this epistle, its form, its content, its ideas, its presuppositions, absolutely excludes the possibility of a Pauline authorship." He admits "verbal echoes of Pauline epistles"<P>Lightfoot puts Philippians before the other three because of its doctrinal affinity with the second group in chapter 3 as a reminiscence, and because of its anticipation of the Christological controversy with incipient Gnosticism in chapter 2. This great discussion is central in Colossians and Ephesians. At any rate, we have thus a consistent and coherent interpretation of the group. Philemon, though purely personal, is wondrously vital as a sociological document. Paul is in this group at the height of his powers in his grasp of the Person of Christ.<P>(d) Fourth Group (1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy):<P>1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy. The Pastoral Epistles are still hotly disputed, but there is a growing willingness in Britain and Germany to make a place for them in Paul\'s life. Von Soden bluntly says: "It is impossible that these epistles as they stand can have been written by Paul" (History of Early Christian Literature, 310). He finds no room for the heresy here combated, or for the details in Paul\'s life, or for the linguistic peculiarities in Paul\'s style. But he sees a "literary nicety"<22>this group that binds them together and separates them from Paul. Thus tersely he puts the case against the Pauline authorship. So Moffatt argues for the "sub-Pauline environment" and "sub-Pauline atmosphere" of these epistles with the advanced ecclesiasticism (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 410ff). Wrede thrusts aside the personal details and argues that the epistles give merely the tendency of early Christianity (Ueber Aufgabe und Metbode der Sogen. New Testament Theologie, 1897, 357). The Hatch-Van Manen article in Encyclopedia Biblica admits only that "the Pastoral Epistles occupy themselves chiefly with the various affairs of the churches within \'Pauline circles.\' "<P>Moffatt has a vigorous attack on these letters in EB, but he "almost entirely ignores the external evidence, while he has nothing to say to the remarkable internal evidence which immediately demands our attention" (Knowling, Testimony of Paul to Christ, 3rd edition, 1911, 129). Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 414) holds that the Pastoral Epistles came from one pen, but the personality and motives are very vague to him. The personal details in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,\'14-18\');">2Ti 1:14-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,\'9-22\');">4:9-22</a> are not on a paragraph with those in The Acts of Paul and Thekla in the 2nd century. Many critics who reject the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles admit the personal details in 2 Timothy, but it is just in such matters that forgeries are recognizable. To admit these fragments is logically to admit the whole (Maclean in 1-vol HDB), as Moffatt sees (Intro, 414), however much he seeks to tone down the use of Paul\'s name as "a Christian form of suasoriae," and "a further and inoffensive development of the principle which sought to claim apostolic sanction for the expanding institutions and doctrines of the early church" (ibid., 415). The objection against these epistles from differences in diction has been grievously overdone. As a matter of fact, each of the four groups has words peculiar to it, and naturally so. Style is a function of the subject as well as a mark of the man. Besides, style changes with one\'s growth. It would have been remarkable if all four<P>groups had shown no change in no change in vocabulary and style. The case of Shakespeare is quite pertinent, for the various groups of plays stand more or less apart. The Pastoral Epistles belong to Paul\'s old age and deal with personal and ecclesiastical matters in a more or less reminiscential way, with less of vehement energy than we get in the earlier epistles, but this situation is what one would reasonably expect. The "ecclesiastical organization" argument has been greatly overdone. As a matter of fact, "the organization in the Pastoral Epistles is not apparently advanced one step beyond that of the church in Philippi in 61 AD" (Ramsay, The Expositor, VII, viii, 17). The "gnosis" met by these epistles (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,20);">1Ti 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,14);">Tit 1:14</a>) is not the highly developed type seen in the Ignatian Epistles of the 2nd century. Indeed, Bartlet ("Historic Setting of the Pastoral Epistles," The Expositor, January, 1913, 29) pointedly says that, as a result of Hort\'s "Judaistic Christianity" and "Christian Ecclesia" and Ramsay\'s "Historical Commentary on the Epistles of Timothy" (Expos, VII, vii, ix, VIII, i), "one feels the subject has been lifted to a new level of reality and that much criticism between Baur and Julicher is out of date and irrelevant." It is now shown that the Pastoral Epistles are not directed against Gnosticism of advanced type, but even of a more Jewish type (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,14);">Tit 1:14</a>) than that in Colossians. Ramsay (Expos, VIII, i, 263) sweeps this stock criticism aside as "from the wrong point of view." It falls to the ground. Lightfoot ("Note on the Heresy Combated in the Pastoral Epistles," Biblical Essays, 413) had insisted on the Jewish character of the Gnosticism attacked here. As a matter of fact, the main objection to these epistles is that they do not fit into the story in Acts, which breaks off abruptly with Paul in Rome. But it is a false premise to assume that the Pastoral Epistles have to fit into the events in Acts. Harnack turns the objection that Paul in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,26);">Ac 20:26</a> predicted that he would never see the Ephesian elders again into a strong argument for the date of Luke\'s Gospel before <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,21);">2Ti 4:21</a> (The Date of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, 103). Indeed, he may not have revisited Ephesus after all, but may have seen Timothy at Miletus also (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,3);">1Ti 1:3</a>). Harnack frankly admits the acquittal and release of Paul and thus free play for the Pastoral Epistles Blass (Acta Apostolorum, 24) acknowledges the Pastoral Epistles as genuine. So also Findlay, article "Paul," in HDB; Maclean in 1-vol HDB; Denney in Standard BD. Sanday (Inspiration, 364) comments on the strength of the external evidence for the Pastoral Epistles. Even Holtzmann (Einl(3), 291) appears to admit echoes of the Pastoral Epistles in the Ignatian Epistles Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, "Date of the Pastoral Epistles," 399-437) justifies completely the acceptance of the Pauline authorship. Deissman (St. Paul, 15) has a needed word: "The delusion is still current in certain circles that the scientific distinction of a Bible scholar may be estimated in the form of a percentage according to the proportion of his verdicts of spuriousness....The extant letters of Paul have been innocently obliged to endure again a fair share of the martyrdom suffered by the historic Paul." See further <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PASTORAL+EPISTLES">PASTORAL EPISTLES</A>.<P>(3) Paul\'s Conception of His Epistles<P>Assuming, therefore, the Pauline authorship of the thirteen epistles, we may note that they, reveal in a remarkable way the growth in Paul\'s apprehension of Christ and Christianity, his adaptation to varied situations, his grasp of world-problems and the eternal values of life. Paul wrote other epistles, as we know. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,9);">1Co 5:9</a> there is a clear reference to a letter not now known to us otherwise, earlier than 1 Corinthians. The use of "every epistle" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,17);">2Th 3:17</a> naturally implies that Paul had written more than two already. It is not certain to what letter Paul refers in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,4);">2Co 2:4</a><3E>most probably to one between 1 and 2 Corinthians, though, as already shown, some scholars find that letter in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,1);">2Co 10-13</a>. Once more Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,16);">Col 4:16</a>) mentions an epistle addressed to the church at Laodicea. This epistle is almost certainly that which we know as Ephesians. If not, here is another lost epistle. Indeed, at least two apocryphal Epistles to the Laodiceans were written to supply this deficiency. As early as <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,2);">2Th 2:2</a> forgers were at work to palm, off epistles in Paul\'s name, "or by epistle as from us," to attack and pervert Paul\'s real views, whom Paul denounces. It was entirely possible that this "nefarious work" would be continued (Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament,1907,191), though, as Gregory argues, Paul\'s exposure here would have a tendency to put a stop to it and to put Christians on their guard and to watch for Paul\'s signature to the epistles as a mark of genuineness (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,17);">2Th 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,21);">1Co 16:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,11);">Ga 6:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,18);">Col 4:18</a>). This was all the more important since Paul evidently dictated his letters to amanuenses, as to Tertius in the case of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,22);">Ro 16:22</a>. In the case of <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,19);">Phm 1:19</a>, Paul probably wrote the whole letter. We may be sure therefore that, if we had the other genuine letters of Paul, they would occupy the same general standpoint as the thirteen now in our possession. The point to note here is that the four groups of Paul\'s Epistles fit into the historical background of the Acts as recorded by Luke, barring the fourth group which is later than the events in Acts. Each group meets a specific situation in a definite region or regions, with problems of vital interest. Paul attacks these various problems (theological, ecclesiastical, practical) with marvelous vigor, and applies the eternal principles of the gospel of Christ in such fashion as to furnish a norm for future workers for Christ. It is not necessary to say that he was conscious of that use. Deissmann (St. Paul, 12f) is confident on this point: "That a portion of these confidential letters should be still extant after centuries, Paul cannot have intended, nor did it ever occur to him that they would be." Be that as it may, and granted that Paul\'s Epistles are "survivals, in the sense of the technical language employed by the historical method" (ibid., 12), still we must not forget that Paul attached a great deal of importance to his letters and urged obedience to the teachings which they contained: "I adjure you by the, Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,27);">1Th 5:27</a>). This command we find in the very first one preserved to us. Once more note <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,14);">2Th 3:14</a>: "And if any man obeyeth not our word by this ep., note that man, that ye have no company with him." Evidently therefore Paul does not conceive his epistles as mere incidents in personal correspondence, but authoritative instructions for the Christians to whom they are addressed. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,17);">1Co 7:17</a>, "And so ordain I in all the churches," he puts his epistolary commands on a paragraph with the words of Jesus quoted in the same chapter. Some indeed at Corinth (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,9);">2Co 10:9</a>f) took his "letters" as an effort to "terrify" them, a thing that he was afraid to do in person. Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,11);">2Co 10:11</a>) does not deny the authority of his letters, but claims equal courage when he comes in person (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,2,10);">2Co 13:2,10</a>). That Paul expected his letters to be used by more than the one church to which they were addressed is clear from <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,16);">Col 4:16</a>: "And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea." If the letter to Laodicea is our Eph and a sort of circular letter (compare Galatians), that is clear. But it must be noted that Colossians, undoubtedly a specific letter to Colosse, is likewise to be passed on to Laodicea. It is not always observed that in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,2);">1Co 1:2</a>, though the epistle is addressed "unto the church of God which is at Corinth," Paul adds, "with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours." Philemon is, of course, a personal letter, though it deals with a sociological problem of universal interest. The Pastoral Epistles are addressed to two young ministers and have many personal details, as is natural, but the epistles deal far more with the social aspects of church life and the heresies and vices that were threatening the very existence of Christianity in the Roman empire. Paul is eager that Timothy shall follow his teaching (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,10);">2Ti 3:10</a>), and "the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,2);">2Ti 2:2</a>). It is this larger view of the future of Christianity that concerns Paul very keenly. The very conception of his ministry to the Gentiles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,16);">Ro 15:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,7);">Eph 3:7</a>) led Paul to feel that he had a right to speak to all, "both to Greeks and to Barbarians" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,14);">Ro 1:14</a>), and hence, even to Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,15);">Ro 1:15</a>f). It is a mistake to limit Paul\'s Epistles to the local and temporary sphere given them by Deissmann.<P>(4) Development in Paul\'s Epistles<P>For Paul\'s gospel or theology see later. Here we must stress the fact that all four groups of Paul\'s Epistles are legitimate developments from his fundamental experience of grace as conditioned by his previous training and later work. He met each new problem with the same basal truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, revealed to Paul on the way to Damascus. The reality of this great experience must here be assumed (see discussion later). It may be admitted that the Acts does not stand upon the same plane as the Pauline Epistles as a witness concerning Paul\'s conversion (Fletcher, The Conversion of Paul, 1910, 5). But even so, the Epistles amply confirm Luke\'s report of the essential fact that Jesus appeared to Paul in the same sense that He did to the apostles and 500 Christians (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'4-9\');">1Co 15:4-9</a>). The revelation of Christ to Paul and in Paul (en emoi, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,16);">Ga 1:16</a>) and the specific call connected therewith to preach to the Gentiles gave Paul a place independent of and on a paragraph with the other apostles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,16);">Ga 1:16</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-10\');">2:1-10</a>). Paul\'s first preaching (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,20);">Ac 9:20</a>) "proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God." This "primitive Paulinism" (Sabatier, The Apostle Paul,1893,113) lay at the heart of Paul\'s message in his sermons and speeches in Acts. Professor P. Gardner regards Luke as a "careless" historian ("The Speeches of Paul in Acts," Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909, 386), but he quite admits the central place of Paul\'s conversion, both in the Acts and the Epistles (ib; compare also The Religious Experience of Paul).<P>We cannot here trace in detail the growth of Paulinism. Let Wernle speak (Beginnings of Christianity,1903, I, 224) for us: "The decisive factor in the genius of Paul\'s theology was his personal experience, his conversion on the road to Damascus." This fact reappears in each of the groups of the Epistles. It is the necessary implication in the apostolic authority claimed in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,\'4-6\');">1Th 2:4-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,15);">2Th 2:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,6,14);">3:6,14</a>. "We might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,6);">1Th 2:6</a>). For the second group we need only refer to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,1);">1Co 9:1</a>f and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'1-11\');">15:1-11</a>, where Paul justifies his gospel by the fact of having seen the risen Jesus. His self-depreciation in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,9);">15:9</a> is amply balanced by the claims in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,10);">15:10</a>. See also <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,\'1-\');">2Co 10-13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,\'1-\');">Galatians 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-\');">2</a> for Paul\'s formal defense of his apostolic authority. The pleasantry in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,14);">Ro 15:14</a> does not displace the claim in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,16,23);">15:16,23</A>f. In the third group note the great passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,\'12-14\');">Php 3:12-14</a>, where Paul pointedly alludes to his conversion: "I was laid hold of by Jesus Christ," as giving him the goal of his ambition, "that I may lay hold"; "I count not myself yet to have laid hold." This concentration of effort to come up to Christ\'s purpose in him is the key to Paul\'s life and letters, "I press on toward the goal." So the golden cord reappears in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'2-13\');">Eph 3:2-13</a>: "How that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ." In the fourth group he still recalls how Christ Jesus took pity on him, the blasphemer, the persecutor, the chief of sinners, and put him into the ministry, "that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all his longsuffering, for an ensample of them that should thereafter believe on him unto eternal life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,16);">1Ti 1:16</a>). He kept up the fight to the end (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,6);">2Ti 4:6</a>f), for the Lord Jesus stood by him (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,17);">2Ti 4:17</a>), as on the road to Damascus. So the personal note of experience links all the epistles together.They reveal Paul\'s growing conception of Christ. Paul at the very start perceived that men are redeemed by faith in Jesus as the Saviour from sin through His atoning death, not by works of the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,38);">Ac 13:38</a>f). In the first group there are allusions to the "work of faith and labor of love and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,3);">1Th 1:3</a>). He speaks of "election" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,4);">1Th 1:4</a>) and "our gospel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,5);">1Th 1:5</a>) and the resurrection of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,10);">1Th 1:10</a>). The Father, Son and Spirit cooperate in the work of salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,13);">2Th 2:13</a>f), which includes election, belief, sanctification, glorification. It is not necessary to press the argument for the conception of salvation by faith in Christ, grace as opposed to works, in the second group. It is obviously present in the third and the fourth. We seem forced to the view therefore that Paul\'s experience was revolutionary, not evolutionary. "If we consider the whole history of Paul as it is disclosed to us in his letters, are we not forced to the conclusion that his was a catastrophic or explosive, rather than a slowly progressive personality?" (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 1911, 32). "His gospel was included in his conversion, and it was meditation that made explicit what was thus implicit in his experience" (same place). This is not to say that there was no "spiritual development of Paul" (Matheson, 1890). There was, and of the richest kind, but it was a growth of expression in the successive application of the fundamental Christian conception. The accent upon this or that phase of truth at different stages in Paul\'s career does not necessarily mean that the truth is a new one to him. It may simply be that the occasion has arisen for emphasis and elaboration.<P>In a broad generalization the first group of the epistles is eschatological, the second soteriological, the third Christological, and the fourth pastoral (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 22). But one must not get the notion that Paul did not have a full gospel of salvation in the first group, and did not come to the true motive of the person of Christ as Lord till the second, or understand the pastoral office till the fourth. See emphasis on Paul\'s work as pastor and preacher in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,\'1-\');">1Th 2</a> (first group), and the Lordship of Christ also (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,1,3);">1Th 1:1,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,1);">2Th 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,13);">2:13</a>f), on a paragraph with the Father.<P>There was a change of accent in each group on questions of eschatology, but in each one Paul cherishes the hope of the second coming of Christ up to the very end when he speaks of his own death (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,8,18);">2Ti 4:8,18</a>). Paul has a whole gospel of grace in all his epistles, but he presses home the special phase of truth needed at the moment, always with proper balance and modification, though not in the form of a system of doctrine. In the first group he relieves the minds of the Thessalonian Christians from the misapprehension into which they had fallen concerning his position on the immediate coming of Christ. In the second group Paul vindicates the gospel of grace from the legalistic addition of the Judaizers who sought to rob the Gentiles of their freedom by insisting that they become Jews as well as Christians. This ringing battle is echoed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a> and is the mightiest conflict of Paul\'s career. We hear echoes of it in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,\'1-\');">Php 3</a>, but he had won his contention. In the third group the battle with error has shifted to the province of Asia, especially the Lycus Valley, where a mystic mixture of Judaism (Essenism) and heathen mystery-religions and philosophies (incipient Gnosticism) was so rife in the 2nd century (the various forms of Gnosticism which combined with some aspects of Christianity). It is possible also that Mithraism was already a foe of Christianity. The central position and essential deity of Jesus Christ was challenged by these new and world-old heresies, and Paul attacks them with marvelous skill in Col and Eph and works out in detail his teaching concerning the person of Christ with due emphasis on the soteriological aspects of Christ\'s work and on Christian life. Bruce (St. Paul\'s Conception of Christianity) conceives that Paul gives us his entire conception of Christianity in the four great epistles of the second group, while B. Weiss (Biblical Theology of the New Testament) sees a more developed doctrine in the third group. He is in his prime in both groups. In the fourth group the same struggle lingers on with variations in Crete and even in Ephesus. The Jewish phase of the heresy is more decided (perhaps Pharisaic), and recalls to some extent the Judaistic controversy in the second group. Paul is older and faces the end, and Christianity has enemies within and without. He turns to young ministers as the hope of the future in the propagation of the gospel of the happy God. The fires have burned lower, and there is less passion and heat. The tone is now fierce, now tender. The style is broken and reminiscent and personal, though not with the rush of torrential emotion in 2 Corinthians, nor the power of logic in Galatians and Romans. Each epistle fits into its niche in the group. Each group falls into proper relation to the stage in Paul\'s life and justly reveals the changes of thought and feeling in the great apostle. It is essential that one study Paul\'s Epistles in their actual historical order if one wishes to understand the mind of Paul. Scholars are not agreed, to be sure on this point. They are not agreed on anything, for that matter. See two methods of presenting Paul\'s Epistles in Robertson, Chronological New Testament (1904), and Moffatt, Historical New Testament (1901).``150';
isbe[6747]='Paul, the Apostle, 2`II. Modern Theories about Paul.<P>1. Criticism Not Infallible:<P>Findlay (HDB, "Paul") utters a needed warning when he reminds us that the modern historical and psychological method of study is just as liable to prepossession and prejudice as the older categories of scholastic and dogmatic theology. "The focus of the picture may be displaced and its colors falsified by philosophical no less than by ecclesiastical spectacles" (same place). Deissmann (St. Paul, 4f) sympathizes with this protest against the infallibility of modern subjective criticism: "That really and properly is the task of the modern student of Paul: to come back from the paper Paul of our western libraries, Germanized, dogmatised, modernized, to the historic Paul; to penetrate through the \'Paulinism\' of our New Testament theologies to the Paul of ancient reality." He admits the thoroughness and the magnitude of the work accomplished in the 19th century concerning the literary questions connected with Paul\'s letters, but it is a "doctrinaire interest" that "has gone farther and farther astray." Deissmann conceives of Paul as a "hero of piety first and foremost," not as a theologian. "As a religious genius Paul\'s outlook is forward into a future of universal history." In this position of Deissmann we see a return to the pre-Baur time. Deissmann would like to get past all the schools of criticism, back to Paul himself.<P>2. The Tubingen Theory:<P>Baur started the modern critical attitude by his Pastoralbriefe (1835, p. 79), in which he remarked that there were only four epistles of Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,1);">Galatians 1</a> and 2 Corinthians, Romans) which could be accepted as genuine. In his Paulus (1845) he expounded this thesis. He also rejected the Acts. From the four great epistles and from the pseudo-Clementine literature of the 2nd century, Baur argued that Paul and Peter were bitter antagonists. Peter and the other apostles were held fast in the grip of the legalistic conception of Christianity, a sort of Christianized Pharisaism. Paul, when converted, had reacted violently against this view, and became the exponent of Gentile freedom. Christianity was divided into two factions, Jewish Christians (Petrinists) and Gentile Christians (Paulinists). With this "key" Baur ruled out the other Pauline epistles and Acts as spurious, because they did not show the bitterness of this controversy. He called them "tendency" writings, designed to cover up the strife and to show that peace reigned in the camp. This arbitrary theory cut a wide swath for 50 years, and became a fetich with many scholars, but it is now dead. "It has been seen that it is bad criticism to make a theory on insecure grounds, and then to reject all the literature which contradicts it" (Maclean in 1-vol HDB). Ramsay (The First Christian Century,1911,195) contends that the perpetuation of the Baur standpoint in Moffatt\'s Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament is an anachronism: "We are no longer in the 19th century with its negations, but in the 20th century with its growing power of insight and the power of belief that springs therefrom." Van Marten (Encyclopedia Biblica) calls the Baur view that of the "old guard" of liberal theology in Germany, Switzerland, France, Holland, and, to some extent, in Britain.<P>3. Protest against Baur\'s View:<P>But even in Germany the older conservative view of Paul has always had champions. The most consistent of the recent opponents of Baur\'s views in Germany is Th. Zahn (compare his Einlin das New Testament, 2 volumes, 1897-99; Introduction to the New Testament, 3 volumes, 1910). In Britain the true successor of Lightfoot as the chief antagonist of the Tubingen School is Sir W.M. Ramsay, whose numerous volumes (Church in the Roman Empire, 1893; Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 1895; Paul the Traveler, 1896; Pauline and Other Studies, 1906; Cities of Paul, 1908; Luke the Physician and Other Studies, 1908; Pictures of the Apostolic Church, 1910; The First Christian Century, 1911) have given the finishing touches to the overthrow of Baur\'s contention.<P>4. Successors to Baur:<P>But even so, already the Baur school had split into two parts. The ablest representatives, like H. J. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Harnack, Julicher, Lipsius, von Soden, were compelled to admit more of Paul\'s Epistles as genuine than the four principal ones, till there are left practically none to fight over but Eph and the Pastoral Epistles. This progress eliminated completely Baur\'s thesis and approached very nearly to the position of Lightfoot, Ramsay and Zahn. Von Soden (Early Christian Literature, 324) still stands out against 2 Thessalonians, but Harnack has deserted him on that point. But the old narrow view of Baur is gone, and von Soden is eloquent in his enthusiasm for Paul (ibid., 119): "As we gaze upon the great literary memorials of the Greeks we may well question whether these Pauline letters are not equal to them<65>indeed, do not surpass them<65>in spiritual significance, in psychological depths and loftiness of ideal, above all in the art of complete and forcible expression." The other wing of Baur\'s school Findlay (HDB) calls "ultra-Baurians." It is mainly a Dutch school with Loman and Van Manen as its main exponents, though it has support in Germany from Steck and Volter, and in America from W. B. Smith. These writers do not say that Paul is a myth, but that our sources (Acts and the 13 epistles) are all legendary. It is a relentless carrying of Baur\'s thesis to a reductio ad absurdum. Van Manen (Encyclopedia Biblica) says of "the historical, Paul" as distinct from "the legendary Paul": "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." When one has disposed of all the evidence he is entirely free to reconstruct the pictures to suit himself. Quite arbitrarily, Van Manen accepts the "we"-sections in Acts as authoritative. But these give glimpses of the historical Jesus quite as truly as the Pauline Epistles, and should therefore be rejected by advocates of the mythical Jesus. So the pendulum swings back and forth. One school destroys the other, but the fact of Paul\'s personality remains. "The new start is one of such importance that we must distinguish the pre-Pauline from the post-Pauline Christianity, or, what amounts to the same thing, the Palestinian sect and the world-religion" (Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, I, 159).<P>5. Appeal to Comparative Religion:<P>In his Paulus (1904), Wrede finds the explanation of Paul\'s theology in late Jewish apocalyptic views and in the oriental mystery religions. Bousset (Die Religion des Judenthums im New Testament Zeitalter, 1903) seeks to find in the "late Jewish apocalyptic" "conceptions from the Babylonian and the Irano-Zarathustrian religions" (Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, 173). According to Wrede\'s view, Paul is one of the creators of "Christ" as distinct from the Jesus of history (compare "Jesus or Christ," HJ, suppl., January, 1909). "Wrede\'s object is to overthrow the view predominant in modern theology, that Paul loyally and consistently expounded and developed theology of Jesus" (J. Weiss, Paul and Jesus,1909,2). J. Weiss in this book makes a careful reply to Wrede as others have done; compare A. Meyer, Jesus or Paul (1909), who concludes (p. 134) dramatically: "Paul<75>just one who points the way to Jesus and to God!" See also Julicher, Paulus und Jesus (1907); Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus (1906); Kolbing, Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu und Paulus (1906). The best reply to Wrede\'s arguments about the mystery-religion is found in articles in the The Expositor for 1912-13 (now in book form) by H.A.A. Kennedy on "St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions." The position of Wrede is carried to its logical conclusion by Drews (Die Christus-Mythe, 1909), who makes Paul the creator of Christianity. W. B. Smith (Der vorchristliche Jesus, 1906) tries to show that "Jesus" was a pre-Christian myth or god. Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters, 235) sums the matter up thus: "Drews\'s thesis is not merely a curiosity; it indicates the natural limit at which the hypothesis advanced by the advocates of comparative religion, when left to its own momentum, finally comes to rest."<P>6. The Eschatological Interpretation:<P>Schweitzer himself may be accepted as the best exponent of the rigid application of this view to Paul (Paul and His Interpreters, 1912) that he had made to Jesus (The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1910). He glories in the ability to answer the absurdities of Steck, Loman and Van Manen and Drews by showing that the eschatological conceptions of Paul in his epistles are primitive, not late, and belong to the 1st century, not to the 2nd (Paul and His Interpreters, 249). He thus claims to be the true pupil of Baur, though reaching conclusions utterly different. There is undoubtedly an element of truth in this contention of Schweitzer, but he loses his case, when he insists that nothing but eschatology must be allowed to figure. "The edifice constructed by Baur has fallen," he proclaims (p. viii), but he demands that in its place we allow the "exclusively Jewish-eschatological" (p. ix) interpretation. There he slips, and his theory will go the way of that of Baur. C. Anderson Scott ("Jesus and Paul," Cambridge Biblical Essays, 365) admits that Paul has the same eschatological outlook as Jesus, but also the same ethical interest. It is not "either ..... or," but both in each case. See a complete bibliography of the "Jesus and Paul" controversy in J. G. Machens\' paper on "Jesus and Paul" in Biblical and Theological Studies (1912, 547f). As Ramsay insists, we are now in the 20th century of insight and sanity, and Paul has come to his own. Even Wernle (Beginnings of Christianity, I, 163) sees that Paul is not the creator of the facts: "He merely transmits historical facts. God<6F>Christ<73>Paul, such is the order." Saintsbury (History of Criticism, 152) says: "It has been the mission of the 19th century to prove that everybody\'s work was written by somebody else, and it will not be the most useless task of the 20th to betake itself to more profitable inquiries."``150';
isbe[6748]='Paul, the Apostle, 3`III. Chronology of Paul\'s Career.<P>1. Schemes:<P>There is not a single date in the life of Paul that is beyond dispute, though several are narrowed to a fine point, and the general course and relative proportion of events are clear enough. Luke gave careful data for the time of the birth of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,1);">Lu 2:1</a>f), for the entrance of the Baptist on his ministry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,1);">Lu 3:1</a>f), and the age of Jesus when He began His work (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,23);">Lu 3:23</a>), but he takes no such pains in the Acts with chronology. But we are left with a number of incidental allusions and notes of time which call for some discussion. For fuller treatment see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRONOLOGY+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>. Garvie (Life and Teaching of Paul, 1910, 181) gives a comparative table of the views of Harnack, Turner, Ramsay and Lightfoot for the events from the crucifixion of Christ to the close of Acts. The general scheme is nearly the same, differing from one to four years here and there. Shaw (The Pauline Epistles, xi) gives a good chronological scheme. Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 62f) gives theories of 23 scholars:<P>Turner, "Chronology," in HDB; Neteler, Untersuchung New Testament Zeitverhaltnisse, 1894; O. Holtzmann, New Testament Zeitgeschichte,1895,changed in 2nd edition, 1906; Bartlet, Apostolic Age, xiiif; Cornely (compare Laurent), New Testament Studien; Harnack, Chron. d. altchristl. Lit. bis Eusebius, 233-329; McGiffert, Apostolic Age,164,172; Zahn, Intro, III, 450f; Ramsay, "The Pauline Chronology," Pauline and Other Studies, 345f; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 213-33; Wendt, Acts, 53-60, Meyer, Commentary; Renan, Paul; Bornemann, Thess, 17f; Meyer, Comm.; Clemen, Paulus, I, 411; Giffert, Student\'s Life of Paul, 242-59; Weiss, Intro, I, 154f; Sabatier, Paul, 13f; Julicher, Einl6, 31f; Findlay, "Paul" in HDB; Farrar, Paul, Appendix; Belser, Theol. Quartalschrift; Steinmann, Abfassungszeit d. Gal, 169; Hoennicke, Die Chronologie des Paulus.<P>Let us look at the dates given by ten of this list:<P>Turner Bartlet Harnack McGiffert Zahn<P>Conversion 35-36 31-32 30 31-32 35<P>1st visit to Jerusalem 38 34-35 33 34-45 38<P>2nd visit to Jerusalem 46 46 44 45 44<P>1st missionary tour 47 47 45 before 45 50-51<P>Meeting in Jerusalem 49 49 46-47 45 52<P>2nd missionary tour 49 49 46-47 46 52<P>3rd missionary tour 52 52 50 49 54<P>Arrest in Jerusalem 56 56 53-54 53 58<P>Arrival in Rome 59 59 56-57 56 61<P>Death of Paul 64-65 61-62 64 58 66-67<P>Ramsay Lightfoot Clemen Findlay Hoennicke<P>Conversion 32 34 31 36 33-35<P>1st visit to Jerusalem 34 37 34 39 36-38<P>2nd visit to Jerusalem 45 45...45-46<P>1st missionary tour 46-48 48 46 46 49?<P>Meeting in Jerusalem 50 51 48 49 50-52<P>2nd missionary tour 50-53 51 49-52 49 ..<P>3rd missionary tour 53-57 54 53-59 53 ..<P>Arrest in Jerusalem 57 58 59 57 ..<P>Arrival in Rome 60 61 62 60 60-62<P>Death of Paul 67 67 64 67 ..<P>This table shows very well the present diversity of opinion on the main points in Paul\'s life. Before expressing an opinion on the points at issue it is best to examine a few details. Paul himself gives some notes of time. He gives "after 3 years" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,18);">Ga 1:18</a>) as the period between his conversion and first visit to Jerusalem, though he does not necessarily mean 3 full years. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,1);">Ga 2:1</a>, Paul speaks of another visit to Jerusalem "after the space of 14 years." Then again Luke quotes him as saying to the Ephesian elders at Miletus that he had spent "3 years" at Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,31);">Ac 20:31</a>). These periods of time all come before Paul\'s last visit and arrest in Jerusalem, and they do not embrace all the time between his conversion and arrest. There is also another note of time in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,2);">2Co 12:2</a>, where he speaks in an enigmatic way of experiences of his "14 years" ago from the writing of this epistle from Macedonia on the third tour. This will take him back to Tarsus before coming to Antioch at the request of Barnabas, and so overlaps a bit the other "14" above, and includes the "3 years" at Ephesus. We cannot, therefore, add these figures together for the total. But some light may be obtained from further details from Acts and the Epistles.<P>2. Crucial Points:<P>(1) The Death of Stephen.<P>Saul is "a young man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,58);">Ac 7:58</a>) when this event occurs. Like other young Jews he entered upon his life as a rabbi at the age of thirty. He had probably been thus active several years, especially as he was now in a position of leadership and may even have been a member of the Sanhedrin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,10);">Ac 26:10</a>). Pontius Pilate was not deposed from his procuratorship till 36 AD, but was in a state of uneasiness for a couple of years. It is more probable, therefore, that the stoning of Stephen would take place after his deposition in the interregnum, or not many years before, when he would be afraid to protest against the lawlessness of the Jewish leaders. He had shown timidity at the death of Jesus, 29 or 30 AD, but some of the forms of law were observed. So nothing decisive is here obtained, though 35 AD seems more probable than 32 or 33.<P>(2) The Flight from Damascus.<P>Paul locates this humiliating experience (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,32);">2Co 11:32</a>f) when "the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes." Aretas the Arabian, and not the Roman, has now control when Paul is writing. The likelihood is that Aretas did not get possession of Damascus till 37 AD, when Tiberius died and was succeeded by Caligula. It is argued by some that the expression "the city of the Damascenes" shows that the city was not under the control of Aretas, but was attacked by a Bedouin chieftain who lay in wait for Paul before the city. That to me seems forced. Josephus (Ant., XVIII, v, 3; vi, 3) at any rate is silent concerning the authority of Aretas over Damascus from 35-37 AD, but no coins or inscriptions show Roman rule over the city between 35 and 62 AD. Ramsay, however ("The Pauline Chronology," Pauline and Other Studies, 364), accepts the view of Marquardt (Romische Staatsalterth., I, 404f) that it was possible for Aretas to have had possession of Damascus before 37 AD. The flight from Damascus is the same year as the visit to Jerusalem, Paul\'s first after his conversion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,26);">Ac 9:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,18);">Ga 1:18</a>). If we knew the precise year of this event, we could subtract two or three years and reach the date of his conversion. Lightfoot in his Commentary on Galatians gives 38 as the date of this first visit to Jerusalem, and 36 as the date of the conversion, taking "after 3 years" in a free way, but in his Biblical Essays, 221, he puts the visit in 37 and the conversion in 34, and says "\' after 3 years\' must mean three whole years, or substantially so." Thus we miss a sure date again.<P>(3) The Death of Herod Agrippa I.<P>Here the point of contact between the Acts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,\'1-4\',\'19-23\');">12:1-4,19-23</A>) and Josephus (Ant., XIX, viii) is beyond dispute, since both record and describe in somewhat similar vein the death of this king. Josephus says that at the time of his death he had already completed the 3rd year of his reign over the whole of Judea (Ant., XIX, viii, 2). He received this dignity soon after Claudius began to reign in 41 AD, so that makes the date 44 AD. He died after the Passover in that year (44), for Peter was imprisoned by him during that feast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,3);">Ac 12:3</a>). But unfortunately Luke sandwiches the narrative about Herod Agrippa in between the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem from Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,29);">Ac 11:29</a>f) and their return to Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,25);">Ac 12:25</a>). He does not say that the events here recorded were exactly synchronous with this visit, for he says merely "about that time." We are allowed therefore to place this visit before 44 AD or after, just as the facts require. The mention of "elders" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,30);">Ac 11:30</a> instead of apostles (compare both in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,4);">15:4</A>) may mean that the apostles are absent when the visit is made. After the death of James (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,1);">Ac 12:1</a>f) and release of Peter we note that Peter "went to another place" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,17);">Ac 12:17</a>). But the apostles are back again in Jerusalem in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,4);">Ac 15:4</a>ff. Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 216) therefore places the visit "at the end of 44, or in 45." Once more we slip the connection and fail to fix a firm date for Paul. It is disputed also whether this 2nd visit to Jerusalem according to Acts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,26);">9:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,29);">11:29</A>f) is the same as the "again" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,1);">Ga 2:1</a>. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 59) identifies the visit in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,1);">Ga 2:1</a> with that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,29);">Ac 11:29</a>f; but Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 221) holds that it "must be identified with the third of the Acts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,4);">15:4</A>ff). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,\'1-\');">Ga 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-\');">2</A> Paul is not recording his visits to Jerusalem, but showing his independence of the apostles when he met them in Jerusalem. There is no proof that he saw the apostles on the occasion of the visit in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,29);">Ac 11:29</a>f. The point of Lightfoot is well taken, hut we have no point of contact with the outside history for locating more precisely the date of the visit of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,1);">Ga 2:1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,4);">Ac 15:4</a>ff, except that it was after the first missionary tour of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,\'1-\');">Ac 13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,\'1-\');">14</A>.<P>(4) The First Missionary Tour.<P>Sergius Paulus is proconsul of Cyprus when Barnabas and Saul visit the island (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,7);">Ac 13:7</a>). The proconsul Paulus is mentioned in a Greek inscription of Soloi (Hogarth, Devia Cypria,1889,114) and Lucius Sergius Paulus in CIL, VI,31,545, but, as no mention of his being proconsul is here made, it is probably earlier than that time. The Soloi inscription bears the date 53 AD, but Sergius Paulus was not proconsul in 51 or 52. Hence, he may have been proconsul in 50 or the early part of 51 AD.It could not be later and may have been earlier.<P>(5) The First Visit to Corinth.<P>The point to note here is that Gallio becomes proconsul of Achaia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,12);">Ac 18:12</a>). Paul has been apparently in Corinth a year and six months when Gallio appears on the scene (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,11);">Ac 18:11</a>). Aquila and Priscilla had "lately come from Italy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,2);">Ac 18:2</a>) when Paul arrived there. They had been expelled from Rome by the emperor Claudius (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,2);">Ac 18:2</a>). On the arrival of Gallio the Jews at once accuse Paul before him; he refuses to interfere, and Paul stays on for a while and then leaves for Syria with Aquila and Priscilla (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,18);">Ac 18:18</a>). Deissmann (St. Paul, Appendix, I, "The Proconsulate of L. Junius Gallio") has shown beyond reasonable doubt that Gallio, the brother of Seneca, became proconsul of Achaia about July, 51 AD (or possibly 52). On a stone found at Delphi, Gallio is mentioned as proconsul of Achaia according to the probable restoration of part of the text. But the stone mentions the fact that Claudius had been acclaimed imperator 26 times. By means of another inscription we get the 27th proclamation as imperator in connection with the dedication of an aqueduct on August 1, 52 AD. So thus the 26th time is before this date, some time in the earlier part of the year. We need not follow in detail the turns of the argument (see Deissmann, op. cit.). Once more we do not get a certain date as to the year. It is either. the summer of 51 or 52 AD, when Gallio comes. And Paul has already been in Corinth a year and a half. But the terminus ad quem for the close of Paul\'s two years\' stay in Corinth would be the early autumn of 52 AD, and more probably 51 AD. Hence, the 2 Thessalonian Epistles cannot be later than this date. Before the close of 52 AD, and probably 51, therefore must come the 2nd missionary tour, the conference at Jerusalem, the first missionary tour, etc. Deissmann is justified in his enthusiasm on this point. He is positive that 51 AD is the date of the arrival of Gallio.<P>(6) Paul at Troas according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,6);">Ac 20:6</a> f.<P>On this occasion Luke gives the days and the time of year (Passover). Ramsay figures (St. Paul the Traveler, 289f) that Paul had his closing service at Troas on Sunday evening and the party left early Monday morning. Hence, he argues back to the Passover at Philippi and concludes that the days as given by Luke will not fit into 56,58,or 59 AD, but will suit 57. If he is correct in this matter, then we should have a definite year for the last trip to Jerusalem. Lewin (Fasti Sacri, numbers 1856, 1857) reaches the same conclusion. The conclusion is logical if Luke is exact in his use of days in this passage. Yet Lightfoot insists on 58 AD but Ramsay has the advantage on this point. See Pauline and Other Studies, 352 f.<P>(7) Festus Succeeding Felix.<P>When was Felix recalled? He was appointed procurator in 52 AD (Schurer, Jewish People in the Time of Christ, I, ii, 174). He was already ruler "many years" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,10);">Ac 24:10</a>) when Paul appears before him in Caesarea. He holds on "two years" when he is succeeded by Festus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,27);">Ac 24:27</a>). But in the Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian text) it is stated that the recall of Felix took place in the last year of Claudius, or 54 AD. But this is clearly an error, in spite of the support given to it by Harnack (Chronologie d. Paulus), since Josephus puts most of the rule of Felix in the reign of Nero (Ant., XX, viii, 1-9; BJ, II, xii, 8-14), not to mention the "many years" of Paul in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,10);">Ac 24:10</a>. But the error of Eusebius has now been explained by Erbes in his Todestage Pauli und Petri, and is made perfectly clear by Ramsay in Pauline and Other Studies, 349ff. Eusebius over-looked the interregnum of 6 years between the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD and the first year of Herod Agrippa II in 50 AD. Eusebius learned that Festus came in the 10th year of Herod Agrippa II. Counting from 50 AD, that gives us 59 AD as the date of the recall of Felix. This date harmonizes with all the known facts. "The great majority of scholars accept the date 60 for Festus; but they confess that it is only an approximate date, and there is no decisive argument for it" (Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 351). For minute discussion of the old arguments see Nash, article "Paul" in new Sch-Herz Enc; Schurer, Hist of the Jewish People, I, ii, 182ff. But if Erbes and Ramsay are correct, we have at last a date that will stand. So then Paul sails for Rome in the late summer of 59 AD and arrives at his destination in the early spring ("had wintered," <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,11);">Ac 28:11</a>) of 60 AD. He had been "two whole years in his own hired dwelling" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,30);">Ac 28:30</a>) when Luke closes the Acts. On the basis of his release in 63 or early 64 and the journeyings of the Pastoral Epistles, Paul\'s death would come by early summer of 68 before Nero\'s death, and possibly in 67. On this point see later. We can now count back from 59 AD with reasonable clearness to 57 as the date of Paul\'s arrest in Jerusalem. Paul spent at least a year and three months (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,8,10);">Ac 19:8,10</a>) in Ephesus (called in round numbers three years in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,31);">Ac 20:31</a>). It took a year for him to reach Jerusalem, from Pentecost (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,8);">1Co 16:8</a>) to Pentecost (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,16);">Ac 20:16</a>). From the spring of 57 AD we thus get back to the end of 53 as the time of his arrival in Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,1);">Ac 19:1</a>). We have seen that Gallio came to Corinth in the summer of 51 AD (or 52), after Paul had been there a year and a half (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,11);">Ac 18:11</a>), leaving ample time in either case for the journeys from Corinth to Ephesus, to Caesarea, to Jerusalem apparently (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,21);">Ac 18:21</a>f), and to Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,1);">Ac 19:1</a>) from the summer of 51 (or 52) we go back two years to the beginning of the 2nd missionary tour (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,\'1-6\');">Ac 16:1-6</a>) as 49 (or 50). The Jerusalem Conference was probably in the same year, and the first missionary tour would come in the two (or three) preceding years 47 and 48 (48-49). The stay at Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,28);">Ac 14:28</a>) may have been of some length. So we come back to the end of 44 or beginning of 45 for the visit to Jerusalem in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,29);">Ac 11:29</a>f. Before that comes the year in Antioch with Barnabas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,26);">11:26</A>), the years in Tarsus in Cilicia, the "three years" after the conversion spent mostly in Arabia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,17);">Ga 1:17</a>f), Paul\'s first appearance at the death of Stephen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,58);">Ac 7:58</a>). These early dates are more conjectural, but even so the facts seem to indicate 35 AD as the probable year of Saul\'s conversion. The year of his birth would then be between 1 and 5 AD, probably nearer 1. If so, and if his death was in 67 or 68 AD, his age is well indicated. He was "Paul the Aged" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,9);">Phm 1:9</a>) when he wrote to Philemon from Rome in 61-63 AD.``150';
isbe[6749]='Paul, the Apostle, 4`IV. His Equipment.<P>Ramsay chooses as the title of chapter ii, in his Paul the Traveler, the words "The Origin of Paul." It is not possible to explain the work and teaching of Paul without a just conception of the forces that entered into his life. Paul himself is still woefully misunderstood by some. Thus, A. Meyer (Jesus or Paul,1909,119) says: "In spite of all that has been said, there is no doubt that Paul, with his peculiar personality, with his tendency to recondite Gnostic speculation and rabbinic argument, has heavily encumbered the cause of Christianity. For many simple souls, and for many natures that are otherwise constituted than himself, he has barred the way to the simple Christianity of Jesus." That is a serious charge against the man who claimed to have done more than all the other apostles, and rightly, so far as we can tell (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,10);">1Co 15:10</a>), and who claimed that his interpretation of Jesus was the only true one (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,\'7-9\');">Ga 1:7-9</a>). Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 1910, 70) minimizes the effect of Paulinism: "The majority of Paul\'s distinctive conceptions were either misunderstood, or dropped, or modified, as the case might be, in the course of a few decades." "Paulinism as a whole stood almost as far apart from the Christianity that followed it as from that which preceded it" (ibid., 73). "The aim of some scholars seems to be to rob every great thinker of his originality" (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 1). Ramsay (Pauline and Other Studies, 3ff) boldly challenges the modern prejudice of some scholars against Paul by asking, "Shall we hear evidence or not?" Every successive age must study afresh the life and work of Paul (ibid., 27) if it would understand him. Deissmann (St. Paul, 3f) rightly sees that "St. Paul is spiritually the great power of the apostolic age." Hence, "the historian, surveying the beginnings of Christianity, sees Paul as first after Jesus." Feine (Jesus Christus und Paulus,1902,298) claims that Paul grasped the essence of the ministry of Christ "auf das tiefste [to the deepest]." I own myself a victim to "the charm of Paul," to use Ramsay\'s phrase (Pauline and Other Studies, 27). In seeking to study "the shaping influences" in Paul\'s career (Alexander, The Ethics of Paul, 1910, 27), we shall be in error if we seek to explain everything by heredity and environment and if we deny any influence from these sources. He is what he is because of original endowments, the world of his day, and his experience of Christ Jesus. He had both essential and accidental factors in his equipment (Fairbairn, Studies in Religion and Theology, 1910, 469f). Let us note the chief factors in his religious development.<P>1. The City of Tarsus:<P>Geography plays an important part in any life. John the Baptist spent his boyhood in the hill country of Judea in a small town (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,39);">Lu 1:39</a>) and then in the wilderness. Jesus spent His boyhood in the town of Nazareth and the country round. Both John and Jesus show fondness for Nature in all its forms. Paul grew up in a great city and spent his life in the great cities of the Roman empire. He makes little use of the beauties of Nature, but he has a keen knowledge of men (compare Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Paul, 12). Paul was proud of his great city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,39);">Ac 21:39</a>). He was not merely a resident, but a "citizen" of this distinguished city. This fact shows that Paul\'s family had not just emigrated from Judea to Tarsus a few years before his birth, but had been planted in Tarsus as part of a colony with full municipal rights (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 31f). Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, then a part of the province of Syria, but it had the title of metropolis and was a free city, urbs libera (Pliny, NH, v.27). To the ancient Greek the city was his "fatherland" (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 1908, 90). Tarsus was situated on the river Cydnus, and in a wide plain with the hill country behind and the snow-covered Taurus Mountains in the distance. It was subject to malaria. Ramsay (ibid., 117ff) from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,4);">Ge 10:4</a>f holds that the early inhabitants were Greeks mingled with Orientals. East and West flowed together here. It was a Roman town also with a Jewish colony (ibid., 169ff), constituting a city tribe to which Paul\'s family belonged. So then Tarsus was a typical city of the Greek-Roman civilization.<P>The religions of the times all met there in this great mart of business. But it was one of the great seats of culture also. Strabo (xiv.6,73) even says that "Tarsus surpassed all other universities, such as Alexandria and Athens, in the study of philosophy and educational literature in general." "Its great preeminence," he adds, "consists in this, that the men of learning here are all natives." Accordingly, he and others have made up a long list of distinguished men who flourished at Tarsus in the late autumn of Greek learning: philosophers<72>of the Academy, of the Epicurean and Stoic schools<6C>poets, grammarians, physicians. At Tarsus, one might say, "you breathed the atmosphere of learning" (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 205). But Ramsay (Cities of Paul, 231f) cautions us not to misunderstand Strabo. It was not even one of the three great universities of the world in point of equipment, fame, students from abroad, or general standing. It was not on a paragraph with Athens and Alexandria, except that "it was rich in what constitutes the true excellence and strength of a university, intense enthusiasm and desire for knowledge among the students and great ability and experience among some at least of the teachers" (ibid., 233). Strabo was very fond of Athenodorus, for instance. No students from abroad came to Tarsus, but they went from Tarsus elsewhere. But Philostratus represents Apollonius of Tyana as disgusted with the university and the town, and Dio Chrysostom describes Tarsus as an oriental and non-Hellenic town.<P>Ramsay speaks of Tarsus in the reign of Augustus as "the one example known in history of a state ruled by a university acting through its successive principals." "It is characteristic of the general tendency of university life in a prosperous and peaceful empire, that the rule of the Tarsian University was marked by a strong reaction toward oligarchy and a curtailment of democracy; that also belongs to the oriental spirit, which was so strong in the city. But the crowning glory of Tarsus, the reason for its undying interest to the whole world, is that it produced the apostle Paul; that it was the one city which was suited by its equipoise between the Asiatic and the Western spirit to mold the character of the great Hellenist Jew; and that it nourished in him a strong source of loyalty and patriotism as the citizen of no mean city" (Ramsay, op. cit., 235). The city gave him a schooling in his social, political, intellectual, moral, and religious life, but in varying degrees, as we shall see. It was because Tarsus was a cosmopolitan city with "an amalgamated society" that it possessed the peculiar suitability "to educate and mold the mind of him who would in due time make the religion of the Jewish race intelligible to the Greek-Roman world" (ibid., 88). As a citizen of Tarsus Paul was a citizen of the whole world.<P>2. Roman Citizenship:<P>It was no idle boast with Paul when he said, "But I am a Roman born" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,28);">Ac 22:28</a>). The chief captain might well be "afraid when he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,29);">Ac 22:29</a>). Likewise the magistrates at Philippi "feared when they heard that they were Romans" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,39);">Ac 16:39</a>), and promptly released Paul and Silas and "asked them to go away from the city." "To the Roman his citizenship was his passport in distant lands, his talisman in seasons of difficulties and danger. It shielded him alike from the caprice of municipal law and the injustice of local magistrates" (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 203). As a citizen of Rome, therefore, Paul stood above the common herd. He ranked with the aristocracy in any provincial town (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 31). He would naturally have a kindly feeling for the Roman government in return for this high privilege and protection. In its pessimism the Roman empire had come to be the world\'s hope, as seen in the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 49). Paul would seize upon the Roman empire as a fit symbol of the kingdom of heaven. "Our citizenship is in heaven" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,20);">Php 3:20</a>); "Ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,19);">Eph 2:19</a>). So he interprets the church in terms of the body politic as well as in terms of the Israelite theocracy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,19);">Col 2:19</a>). "All this shows the deep impression which the Roman institutions made on Paul" (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 205). Ramsay draws a striking parallel under the heading, "Paulinism in the Roman Empire" (Cities of Paul, 70ff). "A universal Paulinism and a universal Empire must either coalesce, or the one must destroy the other." It was Paul\'s knowledge of the Roman empire that gave him his imperialism and statesmanlike grasp of the problems of Christianity in relation to the Roman empire. Paul was a statesman of the highest type, as Ramsay has conclusively shown (Pauline and Other Studies, 49-100). Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 66) does say: "His perspective was not imperialistic," but he shows thereby a curious inability to understand Paul. The vision of Paul saw that the regeneration of the empire could come only through Christianity. Ramsay strikingly shows how the emperor dreaded the spiritual upheaval in Paulinism and fought it steadily till the time of Constantine, when "an official Christianity was victorious, but Pauline Christianity had perished, and Paul was now a mere saint, no longer Paul but Paul, forgotten as a man or a teacher, but remembered as a sort of revivification of the old pagan gods" (Cities of Paul, 78). But, as Ramsay says, "it was not dead; it was only waiting its opportunity; it revived when freedom of thought and freedom of life began to stir in Europe; and it guided and stimulated the Protestants of the Reformation." Suffer Ramsay once more (Pauline and Other Studies, 100): "Barbarism proved too powerful for the Greek-Roman civilization unaided by the new religious bond; and every channel through which that civilization was preserved or interest in it maintained, either is now or has been in some essential part of its course Christian after the Pauline form." Paul would show the Roman genius for organizing the churches established by him. Many of his churches would be in Roman colonies (Antioch in Pisidia, Philippi, Corinth, etc.). He would address his most studied epistle to the church in Rome, and Rome would be the goal of his ministry for many years (Findlay, HDB). He would show his conversance with Roman law, not "merely in knowing how to take advantage of his rights as a citizen, but also in the use of legal terms like "adoption" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,5);">Ga 4:5</a>f), where the adopted heir becomes son, and heir and son are interchangeable. This was the obsolete Roman law and the Greek law left in force in the provinces (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,15);">Ga 3:15</a>). But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,16);">Ro 8:16</a>f the actual revocable Roman law is referred to by which "heirship is now deduced from sonship, whereas in Ga sonship is deduced from heirship; for at Rome a son must be an heir, but an heir need not be a son (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,15);">Heb 9:15</a>ff which presupposes Roman law and the revocability of a will)" (Maclean in 1-vol HDB). So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,24);">Ga 3:24</a> the tutor or pedagogue presents a Greek custom preserved by the Romans. This personal guardian of the child (often a slave) led him to school, and was not the guardian of the child\'s property in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,2);">Ga 4:2</a>. See Ramsay, Galatians, 337-93; Ball, Paul and the Roman Law, 1901,for further discussion. As a Roman, Paul would have "nomen and praenomen, probably taken from the Roman officer who gave his family civitas; but Luke, a Greek, had no interest in Roman names. Paulus, his cognomen, was not determined by his nomen; there is no reason to think he was an AEmilius" (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 31). It is probable, though not certain, that Paul spoke Latin (see Souter, The Expositor, April, 1911). He was at any rate a "Roman gentleman" (Findlay, HDB), as is shown by the dignity of his bearing before governors and kings and the respect accorded him by the proconsul Sergius Paulus, the procurator Porcius Festus, and the centurion Julius, whose prisoner he was in the voyage to Rome. His father, as a Roman citizen, probably had some means which may have come to Paul before the appeal to Rome, which was expensive (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 310ff). Though a prisoner in Rome, he made Rome "his best vantage ground and his adoptive home," and it was here that he rose to "his loftiest conceptions of the nation and destiny of the universal church" (Findlay, HDB) as "an ambassador in chains" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,20);">Eph 6:20</a>). As a Roman citizen, according to tradition, he was beheaded with the sword and not subjected to crucifixion, the traditional fate of Simon Peter. He saw the true pax Romana to be the peace that passeth all understanding (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,7);">Php 4:7</a>; compare Rostron, The Christology of Paul,1912,19).<P>3. Hellenism:<P>It is not possible "to specify all the influences that worked on Paul in his youth" (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 79). We do not know all the life of the times. But he was subject to all that life in so far as any other Jewish youth was. "He was master of all the education and the opportunities of his time. He turned to his profit and to the advancement of his great purpose all the resources of civilization" (Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 285). I heartily agree with this conception of Paul\'s ability to assimilate the life of his time, but one must not be led astray so far as Schramm who, in 1710, wrote De stupenda eruditione Pauli ("On the Stupendous Erudition of Paul"). This is, of course, absurd, as Lightfoot shows (Biblical Essays, 206). But we must not forget Paul lived in a Greek city and possessed Greek citizenship also (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 33). Certainly the Greek traits of adaptability, curiosity, alertness, the love of investigation were marked features of his character, and Tarsus afforded wide opportunity for the acquiring of these qualities (The Ethics of Paul, 39). He learned to speak the vernacular koine like a native and with the ease and swing displayed by no other New Testament writer save Luke and the author of He. He has a "poet\'s mastery of language," though with the passion of a soul on fire, rather than with the artificial rules of the rhetoricians of the day (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 239f). Blass (Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa, 1905) holds that Paul wrote "rhythmically elaborated artistic prose<73>a singular instance of the great scholar\'s having gone astray" (Deissmann, Light, etc., 64). But there is evidence that Paul was familiar with the use of the diatribe and other common rhetorical devices, though he was very far from being tinged with Atticism or Asianism. It is certain that Paul did not attend any of the schools of rhetoric and oratory. Heinrici (Vorrede to 1 Cor. in Meyer\'s Krit. exeget. Komm.) argues that Paul\'s methods and expressions conform more nearly to the cynic and Stoic diatribe than to the rabbinical dialectic; compare also Wendland und Kern Philo u. d. kynisch-stoische Diatribe, and Hicks, "St. Paul and Hellenism" in Stud. Biblical, IV. How extensive was his acquaintance with Greek literature is in doubt. Lightfoot says: "There is no ground for saying that Paul was a very erudite or highly-cultivated man. An obvious maxim of practical life from Menander (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,33);">1Co 15:33</a>), a religious sentiment of Cleanthes repeated by Aratus, himself a native of Tarsus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,28);">Ac 17:28</a>), a pungent satire of Epimenides (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,12);">Tit 1:12</a>), with possibly a passage here and there which dimly reflects some classical writer, these are very slender grounds on which to build the supposition of vast learning" (Biblical Essays, 206); but Lightfoot admits that he obtained directly or indirectly from contact with Greek thought and learning lessons far wider and more useful for his work than a perfect style or a familiar acquaintance with the classical writers of antiquity. Even so, there is no reason to say that he made his few quotations from hearsay and read no Greek books (compare Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 52). Certainly he knew the Greek Old Testament and the Jewish Apocrypha and apocalypses in Greek Garvie is only willing to admit that Paul had such knowledge of Greek literature and philosophy as any Jew, living among Greeks, might pick up (Life and Teaching of Paul, 2), and charges Ramsay with "overstating the influence of the Gentile environment on Paul\'s development" (Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 8). Ramsay holds that it is quite "possible that the philosophical school at Tarsus had exercised more influence on Paul than is commonly allowed" (St. Paul the Traveler, 354). Tarsus was the home of Athenodorus. It was a stronghold of Stoic thought. "At least five of the most eminent teachers of that philosophy were in the university" (Alexander, Ethics of Paul, 47). It is not possible to say whether Paul artended these or any lectures at the university, though it is hard to conceive that a brilliant youth like Saul could grow up in Tarsus with no mental stimulus from such a university. Carvie (ibid., 6) asks when Paul could have studied at the university of Tarsus. He was probably too young before he went to Jerusalem to study under Gamaliel. But it is not probable that he remained in Jerusalem continuously after completing his studies till we see him at the death of Stephen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,58);">Ac 7:58</a>). He may have returned to Tarsus meanwhile and taken such studies. Another possibility is that he took advantage of the years in Tarsus after his conversion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,30);">Ac 9:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,21);">Ga 1:21</a>) to equip himself better for his mission to the Gentiles to which he had been called. There is no real difficulty on the score of time. The world was saturated with Greek ideas, and Paul could not escape them. He could not escape it unless he was innocent of all culture. Ramsay sees in Paul a love of truth and reality "wholly inconceivable in a more narrow Hebrew, and wholly inexplicable without an education in Greek philosophy" ("St. Paul and Hellenism," Cities of Paul, 34). Paul exhibited a freedom and universalism that he found in the Greek thought of the time which was not so decayed as some think. For the discussion between Garvie and Ramsay see The Expositor, April and December, 1911. Pfleiderer (Urchristenthum, Vorwort, 174-178) finds a "double root" of Paulinism, a Christianized Hellenism and a Christianized Pharisaism. Harnack is more nearly correct in saying that "notwithstanding Paul\'s Greek culture, his conception of Christianity is, in its deepest ground, independent of Hellenism." The Hellenistic influence on Paul was relative and subordinate (Wendland, Die hell.-rom. Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judenthum und Christenthum, 3te Aufl,1912,245), but it was real, as Kohler shows (Zum Verstandnis des Apostels Paulus, 9). He had a "Gr inheritance" beyond a doubt, and it was not all unconscious or subliminal as Rostron argues (Christology of Paul, 17). It is true that in Athens the Stoics and Epicureans ridiculed Paul as a "picker up of learning\'s crumbs"<22>Browning\'s rendering (An Epistle) of spermologos. Paul shows a fine scorn of the sophistries and verbal refinements of the mere philosophers and orators in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,\'1-\');">1Co 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>, but all the same he reveals a real apprehension of the true significance of knowledge and life. Dr. James Adam (The Religious Teachers of Greece, 360) shows instances of "the real kinship of thought between Plato and Paul." He does not undertake to say how it came about. He has a Platonic expression, ta dia tou somatos, in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a>, and uses a Stoic and cynic word in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,8);">2Co 9:8</a>, autarkeian. Indeed, there are so many similarities between Paul and Seneca in language and thought that some scholars actually predicate an acquaintance or dependence of the one on the other. It is far more likely that Paul and Seneca drew upon the common phrases of current Stoicism than that Seneca had seen Paul\'s Epistles or knew him personally. Lightfoot has a classic discussion of the matter in his essay on "St. Paul and Seneca" in the Commentary on Php (see also Carr, "St. Paul\'s Attitude to Greek Philosophy," The Expositor, V, ix). Alexander finds four Stoic ideas (Divine Immanence, Wisdom, Freedom, Brotherhood) taken and glorified by Paul to do service for Christ (Ethics of Paul, 49-55). Often Paul uses a Stoic phrase with a Christian content. Lightfoot boldly argues (Biblical Essays, 207) that the later Greek literature was a fitter handmaid for the diffusion of the gospel than the earlier.<P>Paul as the apostle to the Greek-Roman world had to "understand the bearings of the moral and religious life of Greece as expressed in her literature, and this lesson he could learn more impartially and more fully at Tarsus in the days of her decline than at Athens in the freshness of her glory" (same place). Ramsay waxes bold enough to discuss "the Pauline philosophy of history" (Cities of Paul, 10-13). I confess to sympathy with this notion and find it in all the Pauline Epistles, especially in Romans. Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 66) finds "a religious philosophy of history" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,\'1-\');">Ro 9-11</a>, throbbing with strong personal emotion. Paul rose to the height of the true Christian philosopher, though not a technical philosopher of the schools. Deissmann (St. Paul, 53) admits his language assigns him "to an elevated class," and yet he insists that he wrote "large letters" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,11);">Ga 6:11</a>) because he had "the clumsy, awkward writing of a workman\'s hand deformed by toil" (p. 51). I cannot agree that here Deissmann understands Paul. He makes "the world of Paul" on too narrow a scale.<P>4. The Mystery-Religions:<P>Was Paul influenced by Mithraism? H.A.A. Kennedy has given the subject very careful and thorough treatment in a series of papers in The Expositor for 1912-13, already mentioned (see II,5,above). His arguments are conclusive on the whole against the wild notions of W.B. Smith, Der vorchristliche Jesus; J.M. Robertson, Pagan Christs; A. Drews, Die Christus-Mythe; and Lublinski, Die Entstehung des Christenrums aus der antiken Kultur. A magic papyrus about 300 AD has "I adjure thee by the god of the Hebrew Jesu" (ll. 3019f), but Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 256) refuses to believe this line genuine: "No Christian, still less a Jew, would have called Jesus \'the god of the Hebrews.\' " Clemen (Primitive Christianity and Its non-Jewish Sources, 1912, 336) endorses this view of Deissmann and says that in the 1st century AD "one cannot speak of non-Jewish influences on Christology." One may dismiss at once the notion that Paul "deified" Jesus into a god and made Him Christ under the influence of pagan myths. Certainly pagan idolatry was forced upon Paul\'s attention at every turn. It stirred his spirit at Athens to see the city full of idols (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,16);">Ac 17:16</a>), and he caught eagerly at the altar to an unknown god to give him an easy introduction to the true God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,23);">Ac 17:23</a>); but no one can read <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,\'1-\');">Ro 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,\'1-\');">2</A> and believe that Paul was carried away by the philosophy of vain deceit of his time. He does use the words "wisdom" and "mystery" often in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, and Ephesians, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,12);">Php 4:12</a>, "I (have) learned the secret," he uses a word employed in the mystic cults of the time. It is quite possible that Paul took up some of the phrases of these mystery-religions and gave them a richer content for his own purposes, as he did with some of the Gnostic phraseology (pleroma, "fullness," for instance). But Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters, 191f) deals a fatal blow against the notion that the mystery-religions had a formative influence on Paul. He urges, with point, that it is only in the 2nd century that these cults became widely extended in the Roman empire. The dates and development are obscure, but it "is certain that Paul cannot have known the mystery-religions in the form in which they are known to us, because in this fully developed form they did not exist." Cumont (Lea religions orientales dana le paganisme romain, 2nd edition, 1909 (ET)) insists repeatedly on the difficulties in the way of assuming without proof that Mithraism had any influence on Paul. But in particular it is urged that Paul drew on the "mysteries" for his notions of baptism and the Lord\'s Supper as having magical effects. Appeal is made to the magical use of the name of Jesus by the strolling Jewish exorcists in Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,13);">Ac 18:13</a>). Kirsopp Lake (Earlier Epistles of Paul, 233) holds that at Corinth they all accepted Christianity as a mystery-religion and Jesus as "the Redeemer-God, who had passed through death to life, and offered participation in this new life to those who shared in the mysteries which He offered," namely, baptism and the Lord\'s Supper. But Kennedy (Expos, December, 1912, 548) easily shows how with Paul baptism and the Lord\'s Supper are not magical sacraments producing new life, but symbolic pictures of death to sin and new life in Christ which the believer has already experienced. The battle is still raging on the subject of the mystery-religions, but it is safe to say that so far nothing more than illustrative material has been shown to be true of Paul\'s teaching from this source.<P>There is nothing incongruous in the notion that Paul knew as much about the mystery-religions as he did about incipient Gnosticism. Indeed the two things may have been to some extent combined in some places. A passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,18);">Col 2:18</a> has long bothered commentators: "dwelling in the things which he hath seen," or (margin) "taking his stand upon the things," etc. Westcott and Hort even suspected an early error in the text, but the same word, embateuo, has been found by Sir W.M. Ramsay as a result of investigations by Makridi Bey, of the Turkish Imperial Museum, in the sanctuary of Apollo at Claros, a town on the Ionian coast. Some of the initiates here record the fact and say that being "enquirers, having been initiated, they entered" (embateuo). The word is thus used of one who, having been initiated, enters into the life of the initiate (compare Independent,1913,376). Clearly, then, Paul uses the word in that sense in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,18);">Col 2:18</a>.<P>For further discussion see Jacoby, Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum; Glover, Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire; Reitzenstein, Die hell. Mysterienreligionen; Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire, III; Thorburn, Jesus Christ, Historical or Mythical.<P>M. Bruckner (Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen Religionen und ihr Verhaltnis zum Christentum, 1908) says: "As in Christianity, so in many oriental religions, a belief in the death and resurrection of a Redeemer-God (sometimes as His Son), occupied a central place in the worship and cult." To this Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters, 193) replies: "What manipulations the myths and rites of the cults in question must have undergone before this general statement could become possible! Where is there anything about dying and resurrection in Mithra?" There we may leave the matter.<p>5. Judaism:<P>Paul was Greek and Roman, but not "pan-Babylonian," though he was keenly alive to all the winds of doctrine that blew about him, as we see in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles. But he was most of all the Jew, that is, before his conversion. He remained a Jew, even though he learned how to be all things to all men (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,22);">1Co 9:22</a>). Even though glorying in his mission as apostle to the Gentiles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,8);">Eph 3:8</a>), he yet always put the Jew first in opportunity and peril (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,9);">Ro 2:9</a>f). He loved the Jews almost to the point of death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,3);">Ro 9:3</a>). He was proud of his Jewish lineage and boasted of it (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,\'16-22\');">2Co 11:16-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,3);">Ac 22:3</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,4);">26:4</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,\'4-6\');">Php 3:4-6</a>). "His religious patriotism flickered up within his Christianity" (Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism, 66). Had he not been a Roman citizen with some Greek culture and his rich endowments of mind, he would probably not have been the "chosen vessel" for the work of Christ among the Gentiles (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 15). Had he not been the thorough Jew, he could not have mediated Christianity from Jew to Greek. "In the mind of Paul a universalized Hellenism coalesced with a universalized Hebraism" (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 43). Ramsay strongly opposes the notion of Harhack and others that Paul can be understood "as purely a Hebrew." So in Paul both Hebraism and Hellenism meet though Hebraism is the main stock. He is a Jew in the Greek-Roman world and a part of it, not a mere spectator. He is the Hellenistic Jew, not the Aramaic Jew of Palestine (compare Simon Peter\'s vision on the house-top at Joppa, for instance). But Paul is not a Hellenizing Jew after the fashion of Jason and Menelaus in the beginning of the Maccabean conflict. Findlay (HDB) tersely says: "The Jew in him was the foundation of everything that Paul became." But it was not the narrowest type of Judaism in spite of his persecution of the Christians. He belonged to the Judaism of the Dispersion. As a Roman citizen in a Greek city he had departed from the narrowest lines of his people (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 47). His Judaism was pure, in fact, as he gives it to us in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,5);">Php 3:5</a>. He was a Jew of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was a Hebrew, of the seed of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,22);">2Co 11:22</a>). He shared in full all the covenant blessings and privileges of his people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,\'1-5\');">Ro 9:1-5</a>), whose crowning glory was, that of them came Jesus the Messiah. He was proud of the piety of his ancestors (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,3);">2Ti 1:3</a>), and made progress as a student of Judaism ahead of his fellows (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,14);">Ga 1:14</a>). His ancestry was pure, Hebrew of the Hebrews. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,5);">Php 3:5</a>), and so his family preserved the native Palestinian traditions in Tarsus. His name Saul was a proof of loyalty to the tribe of Benjamin as his cognomen Paul was evidence of his Roman citizenship. In his home he would be taught the law by his mother (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,14);">Ga 1:14</a>), as was true of Timothy\'s mother and grandmother (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,5);">2Ti 1:5</a>). In Tarsus he would go to the synagogue also. We know little of his father, save that he was a Roman citizen and so a man of position in Tarsus and possibly of some wealth; that he was a tent-maker and taught his son the same trade, as all Jewish fathers did, whatever their rank in life; that he was a Pharisee and brought up his son as a Pharisee (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,6);">Ac 23:6</a>), and that he sent the young Saul to Jerusalem to study at the feet of Gamaliel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,3);">Ac 22:3</a>). Paul always considered himself a Pharisee as distinct from the Sadducaic scepticism (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,6);">Ac 23:6</a>). Many of the Pharisaic doctrines were identical with those of Christianity. That Paul did not consider himself a Pharisee in all respects is shown later by his conflict with the Judaizers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,1);">Ga 2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,1);">Ac 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,1);">2Co 10-13</a>). Paul says that he was reared as a strict Pharisee (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,5);">Ac 26:5</a>), though the school of Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel) was not so hard and narrow as that of Shammai. But all Pharisees were stricter than the Sadducees. So Jerusalem played an important part in the training of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,3);">Ac 22:3</a>), as Paul recognized. He was known in Jerusalem as a student. He knew Aramaic as well as Greek (and Latin), and could speak in it so as to attract the attention of a Jewish audience (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,2);">Ac 22:2</a>). Paul was fortunate in his great teacher Gamaliel, who was liberal enough to encourage the study of Greek literature. But his liberality in defending the apostles against the Sadducees in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,\'34-39\');">Ac 5:34-39</a> must not be misinterpreted in comparison with the persecuting zeal of his brilliant pupil against Stephen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,58);">7:58</A>). Stephen had opened war on the Pharisees themselves, and there is no evidence that Gamaliel made a defense of Stephen against the lawless rage of the Sanhedrin. It is common for pupils to go farther than their teachers, but Gamaliel did not come to the rescue. Still Gamaliel helped Saul, who was undoubtedly his most brilliant pupil and probably the hope of his heart for the future of Judaism. Harnack (History of Dogma, I, 94) says: "Pharisaism had fulfilled its mission in the world when it produced this man." Unfortunately, Pharisaism did not die; in truth has never died, not even from Christianity. But young Saul was the crowning glory of Pharisaism. An effort has recently been made to restore Pharisaism to its former dignity. Herford (Pharisaism, Its Aim and Method, 1912) undertakes to show that the Gospels have slandered Pharisaism, that it was the one hope of the ancient world, etc. He has a chapter on "Pharisaism and Paul," in which he claims that Paul has not attacked the real Pharisaism, but has aimed his blows at an unreal creation of his own brain (p. 222). But, if Paul did not understand Pharisaism, he did not understand anything. He knew not merely the Old Testament in the Hebrew and the Septuagint translation, for he quotes from both, though usually from the Septuagint, but he also knew the Jewish Apocrypha and apocalypses, as is shown in various ways in his writings (see articles on these subjects). Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters) carries too far his idea that Paul and Jesus merely moved in the circle of Jewish eschatology. He makes it explain everything, and that it cannot do. But Paul does show acquaintance with some of these books. See Kennedy, Paul\'s Conception of the Last Things (1904), for a sane and adequate discussion of this phase of the subject. Pfleiderer pursues the subject in his Paulinism, as does Kabisch in his Eschatologie. So Sanday and Headlam use this source in their Commentary on Romans. Paul knew Wisd, also, a book from the Jewish-Alexandrian theology with a tinge of Greek philosophy (see Goodrick, Book of Wisdom, 398-403; compare also Jowett\'s essay on "St. Paul and Philo" in his Epistles of Paul). Paul knew how to use allegory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,24);">Ga 4:24</a>) in accord with the method of Philo. So then he knew how to use the Stoic diatribe, the rabbinical diatribe and the Alexandrian allegory. "In his cosmology, angelology, and demonology, as well as eschatology, he remains essentially Jewish" (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 17). When he becomes a Christian he will change many of his views, for Christ must become central in his thinking, but his method learned in the rabbinical schools remains with him (Kohler, Zum Verstandnis, etc., 7). Here, then, is a man with a wonderfully rounded culture. What of his mental gifts?<P>6. Personal Characteristics:<P>Much as we can learn about the times of Paul (compare Selden, In the Time of Paul,1900,for a brief sketch of Paul\'s world), we know something of the political structure of the Roman world, the social life of the 1st century AD, the religious condition of the age, the moral standards of the time, the intellectual tendencies of the period. New discoveries continue to throw fresh light on the life of the middle and lower classes among whom Paul chiefly labored. And, if Deissmann in his brilliant study (St. Paul, A Study in Social and Religious History) has pressed too far the notion that Paul the tent-maker ranks not with Origen, but with Amos the herdman (p. 6, on p. 52 he calls it a mistake "to speak of Paul the artisan as a proletarian in the sense which the word usually bears with us"), yet he is right in insisting that Paul is "a religious genius" and "a hero of piety" (p. 6). It is not possible to explain the personality and work of a man like Paul by his past and to refer with precision this or that trait to his Jewish or Greek training (Alexander, Ethics of Paul, 58). "We must allow something to his native originality" (same place). We are all in a sense the children of the past, but some men have much more the power of initiative than others. Paul is not mere "eclectic patchwork" (Bruce, Paul\'s Conception of Christ, 218). Even if Paul was acquainted with Philo, which is not certain, that fact by no means explains his use of Philo, the representative Jew of the Hellenistic age. "Both are Jews of the Dispersion, city-dwellers, with marked cosmopolitan traits. Both live and move in the Septuagint Bible. Both are capable of ecstatic and mystical experiences, and have many points of contact in detail. And yet they stand in very strong contrast to one another, a contrast which reminds us of the opposition between Seneca and Paul....Philo is a philosopher, Paul the fool pours out the vials of his irony upon the wisdom of the world" (Deissmann, Paul, 110). Deissmann, indeed, cares most for "the living man, Paul, whom we hear speaking and see gesticulating, here playful, gentle as a father, and tenderly coaxing, so as to win the hearts of the infatuated children<65>there thundering and lightning with the passionate wrath of a Luther, with cutting irony and bitter sarcasm on his lips" (ibid., 16f).<P>(1) Personal Appearance.<P>We have no reliable description of Paul\'s stature and looks. The Acts of Paul and Thecla (section 3) have a protraiture thus: "Baldheaded, bowlegged, strongly built, a man small in size, with meeting eyebrows, with a rather large nose, full of grace, for at times he looked like a man and at times he had the face of an angel," and Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, 32) adds: "This plain and unflattering account of the apostle\'s personal appearance seems to embody a very early tradition," and in chapter xvi he argues that this story goes back to a document of the 1st century. We may not agree with all the details, but in some respects it harmonizes with what we gather from Paul\'s Epistles. Findlay (HDB) notes that this description is confirmed by "the lifelike and unconventional figure of the Roman ivory diptych, \'supposed to date not later than the 4th century.\'" (Lewin\'s Life and Epistles of Paul, Frontispiece, and II, 211). At Lystra the natives took Barnabas for Jupiter and Paul for Hermes, "because he was the chief speaker" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,12);">Ac 14:12</a>), showing that Barnabas had the more impressive appearance, while Paul was his spokesman. In Malta the natives changed their minds in the opposite direction, first thinking Paul a murderer and then a god because he did not die from the bite of the serpent (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,\'4-6\');">Ac 28:4-6</a>). His enemies at Corinth sneered at the weakness of his bodily presence in contrast to the strength of his letters (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,9);">2Co 10:9</a>f). The attack was really on the courage of Paul, and he claimed equal boldness when present (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,11);">2Co 10:11</a>f), but there was probably also a reflection on the insignificance of his physique. The terrible bodily sufferings which he underwent (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,\'23-26\');">2Co 11:23-26</a>) left physical marks (stigmata, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,17);">Ga 6:17</a>) that may have disfigured him to some extent. Once his illness made him a trial to the Galatians to whom he preached, but they did not scorn him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,14);">Ga 4:14</a>). He felt the frailty of his body as an earthen vessel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,7);">2Co 4:7</a>) and as a tabernacle in which he groaned (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,4);">2Co 5:4</a>). But the effect of all this weakness was to give him a fresh sense of dependence on Christ and a new influx of divine power (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,30);">2Co 11:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,9);">12:9</a>). But even if Paul was unprepossessing in appearance and weakened by illness, whether ophthalmia, which is so common in the East (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,15);">Ga 4:15</a>), or malaria, or recurrent headache, or epilepsy, he must have had a tough constitution to have endured such hardship to a good old age. He had one infirmity in particular that came upon him at Tarsus (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,\'1-9\');">2Co 12:1-9</a>) in connection with the visions and revelations of the Lord then granted him. The affliction seems to have been physical (skolops te sarki, "a stake in the flesh" or "for the flesh"), and it continued with him thereafter as a messenger of Satan to buffet Paul and to keep him humble. Some think that this messenger of Satan was a demon that haunted Paul in his nervous state. Others hold it to be epilepsy or some form of hysteria superinduced by the visions and revelations which he had had. Compare Krenkel, Beitrage (pp. 47-125), who argues that the ancients looked with such dread on epilepsy that those who beheld such attacks would "spit out so as to escape the evil (compare modern knocking on wood"); compare qui sputatur morbus in Plautus (Captivi, iii.4, 17). Reference is made to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,14);">Ga 4:14</a>, oude exeptusate, "nor did ye spit out," as showing that this was the affliction of Paul in Galatia. But epilepsy often affects the mind, and Paul shows no sign of mental weakness, though his enemies charged him with insanity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,24);">Ac 26:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,13);">2Co 5:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,11);">12:11</a>). It is urged in reply that Julius Caesar, Alfred the Great, Peter the Great, and Napoleon all had epilepsy without loss of mental force. It is difficult to think headache or malaria could have excited the disgust indicated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,14);">Ga 4:14</a>, where some trouble with the eyes seems to be indicated. The ministers of Satan (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,15);">2Co 11:15</a>) do not meet the requirements of the case, nor mere spiritual sins (Luther), nor struggle with lust (Roman Catholic, stimulus carnis). Garvie (Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 65, 80) thinks it not unlikely that "it was the recurrence of an old violent temptation," rather than mere bodily disease. "Can there be any doubt that this form of temptation is more likely to assail the man of intense emotion and intense affection, as Paul was?" But enough of what can never be settled. "St. Paul\'s own scanty hints admonish to caution" (Deissmann, Paul, 63). It is a blessing for us not to know, since we can all cherish a close bond with Paul. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 37ff) calls special attention to the look of Paul. He "fastened his eyes on" the man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,9);">Ac 13:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,9);">14:9</a>). He argues that Paul had a penetrating, powerful gaze, and hence, no eye trouble. He calls attention also to gestures of Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,24);">Ac 20:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,2);">26:2</a>). There were artists in marble and color at the court of Caesar, but no one of them cared to preserve a likeness of the poor itinerant preacher who turned out to be the chief man of the age (Deissmann, Paul, 58). "We are like the Christians of Colesage and Laodicea, who had not seen his face in the flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,1);">Col 2:1</a>).<P>(2) Natural Endowments.<P>In respect to his natural endowments we can do much better, for his epistles reveal the mind and soul of the man. He is difficult to comprehend, not because he conceals himself, but because he reveals so much of himself in his epistles. He seems to some a man of contradictions. He had a many-sided nature, and his very humanness is in one sense the greatest thing about him. There are "great polar contradictions" in his nature. Deissmann (St. Paul, 62ff) notes his ailing body and his tremendous powers for work, his humility and his self-confidence, his periods of depression and of intoxication with victory, his tenderness and his sternness; he was ardently loved and furiously hated; he was an ancient man of his time, but he is cosmopolitan and modern enough for today. Findlay (HBD) adds that he was a man possessed of dialectical power and religious inspiration. He was keenly intellectual and profoundly mystical (compare Campbell, Paul the Mystic, 1907). He was a theologian and a man of affairs. He was a man of vision with a supreme task to which he held himself. He was a scholar, a sage, a statesman, a seer, a saint (Garvie, Studies in Paul and His Gospel, 68-84). He was a man of heart, of passion, of imagination, of sensibility, of will, of courage, of sincerity, of vivacity, of subtlety, of humor, of adroitness, of tact, of genius for organization, of power for command, of gift of expression, of leadership<69>"All these qualities and powers went to the making of Jesus Christ\'s apostle to the nations, the master-builder of the universal church and of Christian theology" (Findlay, HDB; see Lock, Paul the Master Builder, 1905; and M. Jones, Paul the Orator, 1910).<P>I cannot agree with Garvie\'s charge of cowardice (Life and Teaching of Paul, 173,) in the matter of the purifying rites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,23);">Ac 21:23</a>) and the dividing of the Sanhedrin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,6);">Ac 23:6</a>). The one was a mere matter of prudence in a nonessential detail, the other was justifiable skill in resisting the attack of unscrupulous enemies. One does not understand Paul who does not understand his emotional nature. He was "quick, impetuous, strenuous, impassioned" (Bevan, Paul in the Light of Today, 1912, 26). His heart throbs through his epistles, and he loves his converts like a mother or a lover (Findlay, HDB) rather than a pastor. We feel the surging emotion of his great spirit in 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians, 2 Timothy in particular. He had the spiritual temperament and reaches his highest flights in his moments of rhapsody. He has elasticity and rebound of spirit, and comes up with the joy of victory in Christ out of the severest trials and disappointments. His ambition is great, but it is to serve Christ his Lord. He is a man of faith and a man of prayer. For him to live is Christ. He has a genius for friendship and binds men to him with hooks of steel<65>men like Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Luke, Titus (Speer, The Man Paul, 1900, 111ff). He is not afraid to oppose his friends when it is necessary for the sake of truth, as with Peter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,11);">Ga 2:11</a>) and with Barnabas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,35);">Ac 15:35</a>)." While God made Paul like the other apostles out of the clay whereof ordinary men are fashioned, yet we may say that He took extraordinary pains with his education" (Fairbairn, Studies in Religion and Theology, 471). If ever a man, full-blooded and open-eyed, walked the earth, it was Paul. It is a debatable question whether Paul was married or not. He certainly was not when he wrote (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,7);">1Co 7:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,5);">9:5</a>). But, if he was a member of the Sanhedrin when he cast his vote against the disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,10);">Ac 26:10</a>), as his language naturally means, then he had been married.<P>There is in Paul the gift of leadership in a marked degree. He, though young, is already at the head of the opposition to Stephen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,58);">Ac 7:58</a>), and soon drives the disciples out of Jerusalem.<P>(3) Supernatural gifts.<P>He had his share of them. He had all the gifts that others could boast of at Corinth, and which he lightly esteemed except that of prophecy (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,\'18-29\');">1Co 14:18-29</a>). He had his visions and revelations, but would not tell what he had seen (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,\'1-9\');">2Co 12:1-9</a>). He did the signs of an apostle (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,\'12-14\');">2Co 12:12-14</a>). He had the power to work miracles (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,\'19-21\');">1Co 4:19-21</a>) and to exercise discipline (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,4);">1Co 5:4</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,\'1-3\');">2Co 13:1-3</a>). But what he cared for most of all was the fact that Jesus had appeared to him on the road to Damascus and had called him to the work of preaching to the Gentiles (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,8);">1Co 15:8</a>).<P>7. Conversion:<P>No other element in the equipment of Paul is comparable in importance to his conversion.<P>(1) Preparation.<P>It was sudden, and yet God had led Saul to the state of mind when it could more easily happen. True, Saul was engaged in the very act of persecuting the believers in Jerusalem. His mind was flushed with the sense of victory. He was not conscious of any lingering doubts about the truth of his position and the justice of his conduct till Jesus abruptly told him that it was hard for him to kick against the goad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,14);">Ac 26:14</a>). Thus suddenly brought to bay, the real truth would flash upon his mind. In later years he tells how he had struggled in vain against the curse of the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,7);">Ro 7:7</a>f). It is probable though not certain, that Paul here has in mind his experience before his conversion, though the latter part of the chapter may refer to a period later. There is difficulty in either view as to the "body of this death" that made him so wretched (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,24);">Ro 7:24</a>). The Christian keeps up the fight against sin in spite of defeat (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,23);">Ro 7:23</a>), but he does not feel that he is "carnal, sold under sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,14);">Ro 7:14</a>). But when before his conversion did Paul have such intensity of conviction? We can only leave the problem unanswered. His reference to it at least harmonizes with what Jesus said about the goad. The words and death of Stephen and the other disciples may have left a deeper mark than he knew. The question might arise whether after all the Nazarenes were right. His plea for his conduct made in later years was that he was conscientious (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,9);">Ac 26:9</a>) and that he did it ignorantly in unbelief (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,13);">1Ti 1:13</a>). He was not willfully sinning against the full light as he saw it. It will not do to say with Holsten that Saul was half convinced to join the disciples, and only needed a jolt to turn him over. He was "yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,1);">Ac 9:1</a>), and went to the high priest and asked for letters to Damascus demanding the arrest of the disciples there. His temper on the whole is distinctly hostile to Christ, and the struggle against his course was in the subconscious mind. There a volcano had gathered ready to burst out.<P>It is proper to ask whether Paul had known Jesus in the flesh, but it is not easy to give a categorical reply. It is possible, though hardly likely, that Paul had come to Jerusalem to study when Jesus as a boy of 12 visited the temple, and so heard Jesus and the doctors. That could be true only in case Paul was born 5 or 6 BC, which is quite unlikely. It is possible again that Paul may have remained in Jerusalem after his graduation the school of Gamaliel and so was present in Jerusalem at the trial and death of Jesus. Some of the ablest of modern scholars hold that Paul knew Jesus in the flesh. It will at once seem strange that we have no express statement to this effect in the letters of Paul, when he shows undoubted knowledge of various events in the life of Christ (compare Wynne, Fragmentary Records of Jesus of Nazareth, 1887). It is almost certain, as J. Weiss admits (Paul and Jesus, 41), that in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,1);">1Co 9:1</a> Paul refers to the Risen Jesus. The passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,16);">2Co 5:16</a> is argued both ways: "Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more." J. Weiss (ibid., 41-55) argues strongly for the view that he knew Jesus in the flesh. But in the first clause of the sentence above Paul means by "after the flesh," not acquaintance, but standpoint. It is natural to take it in the same way as applied to Christ. He has changed his viewpoint of Christ and so of all men. Weiss pleads (ibid., p. 40), at any rate, that we have no word saying that "Paul had not seen Jesus in person." It may be said in reply that the fact that Jesus has to tell Paul who He is (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,5);">Ac 9:5</a>) shows that Paul did not have personal acquaintance with Him. But the question may be left in abeyance as not vitally important. He certainly had not understood Jesus, if he knew Him.<P>(2) Experience.<P>Space does not, permit a discussion of this great event of Paul\'s conversion at all commensurate with its significance. A literature of importance has grown up around it besides the lengthy discussions in the lives and theologies of Paul (see e.g. Lord Lyttleton\'s famous Observations on Saul\'s Conversion, 1774; Fletcher\'s A Study of the Conversion of Paul, 1910; Gardner, The Religious Experience of Paul, 1911; Maggs, The Spiritual Experience of Paul). All sorts of theories have been advanced to explain on naturalistic grounds this great experience of Christ in the life of Paul. It has been urged that Paul had an epileptic fit, that he had a sunstroke, that he fell off his horse to the ground, that he had a nightmare, that he was blinded by a flash of lightning, that he imagined that he saw Jesus as a result of his highly wrought nervous state, that he deliberately renounced Judaism because of the growing conviction that the disciples were right. But none of these explanations explains. Mere prejudice against the supernatural, such as is shown by Weinel in his Paulus, and by Holsten in his able book (Zum Evangelium d. Paulus und Petrus), cannot solve this problem. One must be willing to hear the evidence. There were witnesses of the bright light (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,13);">Ac 26:13</a>) and of the sound (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,7);">Ac 9:7</a>) which only Paul understood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,9);">Ac 22:9</a>), as he alone beheld Jesus. It is claimed by some that Paul had a trance or subjective vision, and did not see Jesus with his eyes. Denney (Standard Bible Dictionary) replies that it is not a pertinent objection. Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,1);">Joh 21:1</a>) "manifested" Himself, and Paul says that he "saw" Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,1);">1Co 9:1</a>), that Jesus "appeared" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,8);">1Co 15:8</a>) to him. Hence, it was both subjective and objective. But the reality of the event was as clear to Paul as his own existence. The account is given 3 times in Acts (chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,\'1-\');">9</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,\'1-\');">22</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,\'1-\');">26</A>) in substantial agreement, with a few varying details. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,\'1-\');">Ac 9</a> the historical narrative occurs, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,\'1-\');">Ac 22</a> Paul\'s defense before the mob in Jerusalem is given, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,\'1-\');">Ac 26</a> we have the apology before Agrippa. There are no contradictions of moment, save that in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,\'1-\');">26</a> Jesus Himself is represented as giving directly to Paul the call to the Gentiles while in chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,\'1-\');">9</A> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,\'1-\');">22</A> it is conveyed through Ananias (the fuller and more accurate account). There is no need to notice the apparent contradiction between <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,7);">Ac 9:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,9);">22:9</A>, for the difference in case in the Greek gives a difference in sense, hearing the sound, with the genitive, and not understanding the sense, with the accusative. Findlay (HBD) remarks that the conversion of Paul is a psychological and ethical problem which cannot be accounted for save by Paul\'s own interpretation of the change wrought in him. He saw Jesus and surrendered to Him.<P>(3) Effect on Paul.<P>His surrender to Jesus was instantaneous and complete: "What shall I do, Lord?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,10);">Ac 22:10</a>). He could not see for the glory of that light (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,11);">Ac 22:11</a>), but he had already seen "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,6);">2Co 4:6</a>). The god of this world could blind him no longer. He had seen Jesus, and all else had lost charm for Paul. There is infinite pathos in the picture of the blind Saul led by the hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,8);">Ac 9:8</a>) into Damascus. All the pride of power is gone, all the lust for vengeance. The fierceness of the name of Saul is well shown in the dread that Ananias has and the protest that he makes to the Lord concerning him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,\'10-14\');">Ac 9:10-14</a>). Ananias doubtless thought that the Lord had made a strange choice of a vessel to bear the message of Christ to the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,15);">Ac 9:15</a>), but there was hope in the promise of chastisement to him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,16);">Ac 9:16</a>). So he went, and calls him "Brother Saul." Saul was filled with the Holy Spirit, the scales fell from his eyes, he was baptized. And now what next? What did the world hold in store for the proud scion of Judaism who had renounced power, place, pride for the lowly Nazarene? He dared not go back to Jerusalem. The Jews in Damascus would have none of him now. Would the disciples receive him? They did. "And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,19);">Ac 9:19</a>). Ananias vouched for him by his vision. Then Saul took his courage in his hands and went boldly into the synagogues and "proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,20);">Ac 9:20</a>). This was a public committal and a proclamation of his new creed. There was tremendous pith and point in this statement from Saul. The Jews were amazed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,21);">Ac 9:21</a>). This is the core of Paul\'s message as we see in his later ministry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,\'1-\');">Ac 13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,3);">17:3</a>). It rests at bottom on Paul\'s own experience of grace. "His whole theology is nothing but the explanation of his own conversion" (Stalker, Life of Paul, 45). We need not argue (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 51) that Paul understood at once the full content of the new message, but he had the heart of it right.``150';
isbe[6750]='Paul, the Apostle, 5`V. Work.<P>1. Adjustment:<P>There was evidently a tumult in Paul\'s soul. He had undergone a revolution, both intellectual and spiritual. Before he proceeded farther it was wise to think through the most important implications of the new standpoint. Luke gives no account of this personal phase of Paul\'s career, but he allows room for it between <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,21);">Ac 9:21</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,22);">22</A>. It is Paul who tells of his retirement to Arabia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,17);">Ga 1:17</a>f) to prove his independence of the apostles in Jerusalem. He did not go to them for instruction or for ecclesiastical authority. He did not adopt the merely traditional view of Jesus as the Messiah. He knew, of course, the Christian contention well enough, for he had answered it often enough. But now his old arguments were gone and he must work his way round to the other side, and be able to put his new gospel with clearness and force. He was done with calling Jesus anathema (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,3);">1Co 12:3</a>). Henceforth to him Jesus is Lord. We know nothing of Paul\'s life in Arabia nor in what part of Arabia he was. He may have gone to Mt. Sinai and thought out grace in the atmosphere of law, but that is not necessary. But it is clear that Paul grew in apprehension of the things of Christ during these years, as indeed he grew to the very end. But he did not grow away from the first clear vision of Christ. He claimed that God had revealed His Son in him that he might preach to the Gentiles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,16);">Ga 1:16</a>). He claimed that from the first and to the very last. The undoubted development in Paul\'s Epistles (see Matheson, Spiritual Development of Paul, and Sabatier, The Apostle Paul) is, however, not a changing view of Christ that nullifies Paul\'s "original Christian inheritance" (Kohler, Zum Verstandnis des Apostels Paulus, 13). Pfieiderer (Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity, 3rd edition,1897,217) rejects Colossians because of the advanced Christology here found. But the Christology of Colossians is implicit in Paul\'s first sermon at Damascus. "It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the significance and value of the Cross became clear to him almost simultaneously with the certainty of the resurrection and of the Messiahship of Jesus" (Garvie, Studies, etc., 57). The narrow Jew has surrendered to Christ who died for the sins of the world. The universal gospel has taken hold of his mind and heart, and it will work out its logical consequences in Paul. The time in Arabia is not wasted. When he reappears in Damascus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,22);">Ac 9:22</a>) he has "developed faith" (Findlay, HDB) and energy that bear instant fruit. He is now the slave of Christ. For him henceforth to live is Christ. He is crucified with Christ. He is in Christ. The union of Paul with Christ is the real key to his life. It is far more than a doctrine about Christ. It is real fellowship with Christ (Deissmann, Paul, 123). Thus it is that the man who probably never saw Christ in the flesh understands him best (Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, I, 159).<P>2. Opposition:<P>Saul had "increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt in Damascus, proving that this is the Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,22);">Ac 9:22</a>). Now he not merely "proclaims" as before (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,20);">Ac 9:20</a>); he "proves." He does it with such marvelous skill that the Jews are first confounded, then enraged to the point of murder. Their former hero was now their foe. The disciples had learned to run from Saul. They now let him down in a basket through the wall by night and he is gone (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,23);">Ac 9:23</a>). This then is the beginning of the active ministry of the man who was called to be a chosen vessel to Gentiles, kings, and Jews, There was no need to go back to the wilderness. He had gotten his bearings clearly now. He had his message and it had his whole heart. He had not avoided Jerusalem because he despised flesh and blood, but because he had no need of light from the apostles since "the divine revelation so completely absorbed his interest and attention" (Garvie, Life and Teaching of Paul, 33). No door was open as yet among the Gentiles. Sooner or later he must go to Jerusalem and confer with the leaders there if he was to cooperate with them in the evangelization of the world. Saul knew that he would be an object of suspicion to the disciples in Jerusalem. That was inevitable in view of the past. It was best to go, but he did not wish to ask any favors of the apostles. Indeed he went in particular "to visit Cephas" (margin, "to become acquainted with" <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,18);">Ga 1:18</a>). They knew each other, of course, as opponents. But Saul comes now with the olive branch to his old enemy. He expressly explains (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,19);">Ga 1:19</a>) that he saw no other apostle. He did see James, the Lord\'s brother, who was not one of the Twelve. It seems that at first Peter and James were both afraid of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,26);">Ac 9:26</a>), "not believing that he was a disciple." If a report came 3 years before of the doings at Damascus, they had discounted it. All had been quiet, and now Saul suddenly appears in Jerusalem in a new role. It was, they feared, just a ruse to complete his work of old. But for Barnabas, Saul might not have had that visit of 15 days with Peter. Barnabas was a Hellenist of Cyprus and believed Saul\'s story and stood by him. Thus, he had his opportunity to preach the gospel in Jerusalem, perhaps in the very synagogues in which he had heard Stephen, and now he is taking Stephen\'s place and is disputing against the Grecian Jews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,29);">Ac 9:29</a>). He had days of blessed fellowship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,28);">Ac 9:28</a>) with the disciples, till the Grecian Jews sought to kill him as Saul had helped to do to Stephen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,29);">Ac 9:29</a>). It was a repetition of Damascus, but Saul did not wish to run again so soon. He protested to the Lord Jesus, who spoke in a vision to him, and recalls the fate of Stephen, but Jesus bids him go: "For I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,\'17-21\');">Ac 22:17-21</a>). One martyr like Stephen is enough. So the brethren took him down to Caesarea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,30);">Ac 9:30</a>). It was an ominous beginning for a ministry with so clear a call. Where can he go now?<P>3. Waiting:<P>They "sent him forth to Tarsus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,30);">Ac 9:30</a>). Who would welcome him there? At Jerusalem he apparently avoided Gamaliel and the Sanhedrin. He was with the Christians and preached to the Hellenistic Jews. The Jews regarded him as a turncoat, a renegade Jew. There were apparently no Christians in Tarsus, unless some of the disciples driven from Jerusalem by Saul himself went that far, as they did go to Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,19);">Ac 11:19</a>f). But Saul was not idle, for he speaks himself of his activity in the regions of Syria and Cilicia during this "period of obscurity" (Denney, Standard Bible Dict.) as a thing known to the churches of Judea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,21);">Ga 1:21</a>f). He was not idle then. The way was not yet opened for formal entrance upon the missionary enterprise, but Saul was not the man to do nothing at home because of that. If they would not hear him at Damascus and Jerusalem, they would in the regions of Syria and Cilicia, his home province. We are left in doubt at first whether Paul preached only to Jews or to Gentiles also. He had the specific call to preach to the Gentiles, and there is no reason why he should not have done so in this province, preaching to the Jews first as he did afterward. He did not have the scruples of Simon Peter to overcome. When he appears at Antioch with Barnabas, he seems to take hold like an old hand at the business. It is quite probable, therefore, that this obscure ministry of some 8 or 10 years may have had more results than we know. Paul apparently felt that he had done his work in that region, for outside of Antioch he gives no time to it except that in starting out on the second tour from Antioch "he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,41);">Ac 15:41</a>), churches probably the fruit of this early ministry and apparently containing Gentiles also. The letter from the Jerusalem conference was addressed to "the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,23);">Ac 15:23</a>). Cilicia was now part of the Roman province of Syria. So then we conclude that Saul had a Gentile ministry in this region. "Independently, under no human master, he learned his business as a missionary to the heathen" (Findlay, HDB). One can but wonder whether Saul was kindly received at home by his father and mother. They had looked upon him with pride as the possible successor of Gamaliel, and now he is a follower of the despised Nazarene and a preacher of the Cross. It is possible that his own exhortations to fathers not to provoke their children to wrath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,4);">Eph 6:4</a>) may imply that his own father had cast him out at this time. Findlay (HDB) argues that Saul would not have remained in this region so long if his home relations had been altogether hostile. It is a severe test of character when the doors close against one. But Saul turned defeat to glorious gain.<P>4. Opportunity:<P>Most scholars hold that the ecstatic experience told by Paul in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,\'1-9\');">2Co 12:1-9</a> took place before he came to Antioch. If we count the years strictly, 14 from 56 AD would bring us to 42 AD. Paul had spent a year in Antioch before going up to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,29);">Ac 11:29</a>f). Findlay (HDB) thinks that Paul had the visions before he received the call to come to Antioch. Garvie (Life and Teaching of Paul, 41) holds he received the call first. "Such a mood of exaltation would account for the vision to which he refers in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,\'1-4\');">2Co 12:1-4</a>." At any rate he had the vision with its exaltation and the thorn in the flesh with its humiliation before he came to Antioch in response to the invitation of Barnabas. He had undoubtedly had a measure of success in his work in Cilicia and Syria. He had the seal of the divine blessing on his work among the Gentiles. But there was a pang of disappointment over the attitude of the Jerusalem church toward his work. He was apparently left alone to his own resources. "Only such a feeling of disappointment can explain the tone of his references to his relations to the apostles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,\'11-24\');">Ga 1:11-24</a>)" (Garvie, Life and Teaching of Paul, 41). There is no bitterness in this tone<6E>but puzzled surprise. It seems that the 12 apostles are more or less absent from Jerusalem during this period with James the brother of the Lord Jesus as chief elder. A narrow Pharisaic element in the church was active and sought to shape the policy of the church in its attitude toward the Gentiles. This is clear in the treatment of Peter, when he returned to Jerusalem after the experience at Caesarea with Cornelius (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,\'1-18\');">Ac 11:1-18</a>). There was acquiescence, but with the notion that this was an exceptional case of the Lord\'s doing. Hence, they show concern over the spread of the gospel to the Greeks at Antioch, and send Barnabas to investigate and report (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,\'19-22\');">Ac 11:19-22</a>). Barnabas was a Hellenist, and evidently did not share the narrow views of the Pharisaic party in the church at Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,2);">Ac 11:2</a>), for he was glad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,23);">Ac 11:23</a>f) of the work in Antioch. Probably mindful of the discipline attempted on Simon Peter, he refrained from going back at once to Jerusalem. Moreover, he believed in Saul and his work, and thus he gave him his great opportunity at Antioch. They had there a year\'s blessed work together (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,25);">Ac 11:25</a>). So great was the outcome that the disciples received a new name to distinguish them from the Gentiles and the Jews. But the term "Christian" did not become general for a long time. There was then a great Greek church at Antioch, possibly equal in size to the Jewish church in Jerusalem. The prophecy by Agabus of a famine gave Barnabas and Saul a good excuse for a visit to Jerusalem with a general collection<6F>"every man according to his ability"<22>from the Greek church for the relief of the poverty in the Jerusalem church. Barnabas had assisted generously in a similar strain in the beginning of the work there (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,36);">Ac 4:36</a>f), unless it was a different Barnabas, which is unlikely. This contribution would help the Jerusalem saints to understand now that the Greeks were really converted. It was apparently successful according to the record in Acts. The apostles seem to have been absent, since only "elders" are mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,30);">11:30</A>.<P>The incidents in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,\'1-\');">Ac 12</a>, as already noted, are probably not contemporaneous with this visit, but either prior or subsequent to it. However, it is urged by some scholars that this visit is the same as that of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-10\');">Ga 2:1-10</a> since Paul would not have omitted it in his list of visits to Jerusalem. But then Paul is not giving a list of visits, but is only showing his independence of the apostles. If they were absent from Jerusalem at that time, there would be no occasion to mention it. Besides, Luke in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a> does recount the struggle in Jerusalem over the problem of Gentile liberty. If that question was an issue at the visit in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,30);">Ac 11:30</a>, it is quite remarkable that he should have passed it by, especially if the matter caused as much heat as is manifest in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-\');">Ga 2</a>, both in Jerusalem and Antioch. It is much simpler to understand that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-10\');">Ga 2:1-10</a> we have the public and the private aspects of the same issue, than to suppose that Luke has slurred the whole matter over in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,30);">Ac 11:30</a>. The identification of the visit of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-\');">Ga 2</a> with that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,30);">Ac 11:30</a> makes it possible to place Galatians before the conference in Jerusalem in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a> and implies the correctness of the South Galatian theory of the destination of the epistle and of the work of Paul, a theory with strong advocates and arguments, but which is by no means established (see below for discussion at more length). So far as we can gather from Luke, Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem with John Mark (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,25);">Ac 12:25</a>)," when they had fulfilled their ministration" with satisfaction. The Pharisaic element was apparently quiescent, and the outlook for the future work among the Gentiles seemed hopeful. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 62ff) argues strongly for identifying the revelation mentioned in Paul\'s speech in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,20);">Ac 22:20</a>f with this visit in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,30);">11:30</A> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,25);">12:25</A>), rather than with the one in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,29);">Ac 9:29</a>f. There is a textual problem in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,25);">12:25</A>, but I cannot concur in the solution of Ramsay.<P>5. The First Great Mission Campaign:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,\'1-\');">Ac 13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,\'1-\');">14</a>, 47 and 48 AD:<P>Paul had already preached to the Gentiles in Cilicia and Syria for some 10 years. The work was not new to him. He had had his specific call from Jerusalem long ago and had answered it. But now an entirely new situation arises. His work had been individual in Cilicia. Now the Spirit specifically directs the separation of Barnabas and Saul to this work (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,2);">Ac 13:2</a>). They were to go together, and they had the sympathy and prayers of a great church. The endorsement was probably not "ordination" in the technical sense, but a farewell service of blessing and good will as the missionaries went forth on the world-campaign (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,3);">Ac 13:3</a>). No such unanimous endorsement could have been obtained in Jerusalem to this great enterprise. It was momentous in its possibilities for Christianity. Hitherto work among the Gentiles had been sporadic and incidental. Now a determined effort was to be made to evangelize a large section of the Roman empire. There is no suggestion that the church at Antioch provided funds for this or for the two later Campaigns, as the church at Philippi came to do. How that was managed this time we do not know. Some individuals may have helped. Paul had his trade to fall back on, and often had resort to it later. The presence of John Mark "as their attendant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,5);">Ac 13:5</a>) was probably due to Barnabas, his cousin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,10);">Col 4:10</a>). The visit to Cyprus, the home of Barnabas, was natural. There were already some Christians there (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,20);">Ac 11:20</a>), and it was near. They preach first in the synagogues of the Jews at Salamis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,5);">Ac 13:5</a>). We are left to conjecture as to results there and through the whole island till Paphos is reached. There they meet a man of great prominence and intelligence, Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsul, who had been under the spell of a sorcerer with a Jewish name<6D>Elymas Bar-jesus (compare Peter\'s encounter with Simon Magus in Samaria). In order to win and hold Sergius Paulus, who had become interested in Christianity, Paul has to punish Bar-jesus with blindness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,10);">Ac 13:10</a>) in the exercise of that apostolic power which he afterward claimed with such vigor (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,4);">1Co 5:4</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,10);">2Co 13:10</a>). He won Sergius Paulus, and this gave him cheer for his work. From now on it is Paul, not Saul, in the record of Luke, perhaps because of this incident, though both names probably belonged to him from the first. Now also Paul steps to the fore ahead of Barnabas, and it is "Paul\'s company" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,13);">Ac 13:13</a>) that sets sail from Paphos for Pamphylia. There is no evidence here of resentment on the part of Barnabas at the leadership of Paul. The whole campaign may have been planned from the start by the Holy Spirit as the course now taken may have been due to Paul\'s leadership. John Mark deserts at Perga and returns to Jerusalem (his home), not to Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,13);">Ac 13:13</a>). Paul and Barnabas push on to the tablelands of Pisidia. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 93) thinks that Paul had malaria down at Perga and hence desired to get up into higher land. That is possible. The places mentioned in the rest of the tour are Antioch in Pisidia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,14);">Ac 13:14</a>), and Iconium (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,51);">Ac 13:51</a>), Lystra (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,8);">Ac 14:8</a>), and Derbe (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,20);">Ac 14:20</a>), cities of Lycaonia. These terms are ethnographic descriptions of the southern divisions of the Roman province of Galatia, the northern portion being Galatia proper or North Galatia. So then Paul and Barnabas are now at work in South Galatia, though Luke does not mention that name, using here only the popular designations. The work is wonderfully successful. In these cities, on one of the great Roman roads east and west, Paul is reaching the centers of provincial life as will be his custom. At Antioch Paul is invited to repeat his sermon on the next Sabbath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,42);">Ac 13:42</a>), and Luke records at length the report of this discourse which has the characteristic notes of Paul\'s gospel as we see it in his epistles. Paul may have kept notes of the discourse. There were devout Gentiles at these services. These were the first to be won, and thus a wider circle of Gentiles could be reached. Paul and Barnabas were too successful at Antioch in Pisidia. The jealous Jews opposed, and Paul and Barnabas dramatically turned to the Gentiles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,45);">Ac 13:45</a>). But the Jews reached the city magistrate through the influential women, and Paul and Barnabas were ordered to leave (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,50);">Ac 13:50</a>f). Similar success brings like results in Iconium. At Lystra, before the hostile Jews come, Paul and Barnabas have great success and, because of the healing of the impotent man, are taken as Mercury and Jupiter respectively, and worship is offered them. Paul\'s address in refusal is a fine plea on the grounds of natural theology (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,\'15-18\');">Ac 14:15-18</a>). The attempt on Paul\'s life after the Jews came seemed successful. In the band of disciples that "stood round about him," there may have been Timothy, Paul\'s son in the gospel. From Derbe they retrace their steps to Perga, in order to strengthen the churches with officers, and then sail for Seleucia and Antioch. They make their report to the church at Antioch. It is a wonderful story. The door of faith is now wide open for the Gentiles who have entered in great numbers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,27);">Ac 14:27</a>). No report was sent to Jerusalem. What will the Pharisaic party do now?<P>6. The Conflict at Jerusalem:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-\');">Ga 2</a>, 49 AD:<P>The early date of Galatians, addressed to these churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia before the Conference in Jerusalem does not allow time for a second visit there (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,13);">Ga 4:13</a>), and requires that the Judaizers from Jerusalem followed close upon the heels of Paul and Barnabas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,6);">Ga 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,1);">3:1</a>) in South Galatia. Besides, there is the less likelihood that the matter would have been taken a second time to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,2);">Ac 15:2</a>f) if already the question had been settled in Paul\'s favor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,30);">Ac 11:30</a>). It is strange also that no reference to this previous conference on the same subject is made in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a>, since Peter does refer to his experience at Caesarea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,9);">15:9</a>) and since James in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,25);">Ac 21:25</a> specifically ("we wrote") mentions the letter of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a> in which full liberty was granted to the Gentiles. Once more, the attack on the position of Paul and Barnabas in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,1);">Ac 15:1</a> is given as a new experience, and hence the sharp dissension and tense feeling. The occasion for the sudden outbreak at Antioch on the part of the self-appointed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,24);">Ac 15:24</a>) regulators of Paul and Barnabas lay in the reports that came to Jerusalem about the results of this campaign on a large scale among the Gentiles. There was peril to the supremacy of the Jewish element. They had assumed at first, as even Peter did who was not a Judaizer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,\'1-\');">Ac 10</a>), that the Gentiles who became disciples would also become Jews. The party of the circumcision had made protest against the conduct of Peter at Caesarea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,1);">11:1</A>f) and had reluctantly acquiesced in the plain work of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,18);">11:18</A>). They had likewise yielded in the matter of the Greeks at Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,19);">11:19</A>ff) by the help of the contribution (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,29);">11:29</a>f). But they had not agreed to a campaign to Hellenize Christianity. The matter had to stop. So the Judaizers came up to Antioch and laid down the law to Paul and Barnabas. They did not wait for them to come to Jerusalem. They might not come till it was too late (compare Barnabas in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,\'1-\');">Ac 11</a>). Paul and Barnabas had not sought the controversy. They had both received specific instructions from the Holy Spirit to make this great campaign among the Gentiles. They would not stultify themselves and destroy the liberty of the Gentiles in Christ by going back and having the Mosaic Law imposed on them by the ceremony of circumcision. They saw at once the gravity of the issue. The very essence of the gospel of grace was involved. Paul had turned away from this yoke of bondage. He would not go back to it nor would he impose it on his converts. The church at Antioch stood by Paul and Barnabas. Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,2);">Ga 2:2</a>) says that he had a revelation to go to Jerusalem with the problem. Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,3);">Ac 15:3</a>) says that the church sent them. Surely there is no inconsistency here. It is not difficult to combine the personal narrative in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-\');">Ga 2</a> with the public meetings recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a>. We have first the general report by Paul and Barnabas to the church in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,4);">Ac 15:4</a>f) to which instant exception was made by the Judaizing element. There seems to have come an adjournment to prepare for the conflict, since in 15:6 Luke says again that "the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter." Between these two public meetings we may place the private conference of Paul and Barnabas with Peter, John and James and other teachers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-10\');">Ga 2:1-10</a>). In this private conference some of the timid brethren wished to persuade Paul to have Titus, a Greek Christian whom Paul had brought down from Antioch (a live specimen!), offered as a sacrifice to the Judaizers ("false brethren") and circumcised. But Paul stood his ground for the truth of the gospel and was supported by Peter, John and James. They agreed all around for Paul and Barnabas to go on with their work to the Gentiles, and Peter, John and James would push the work among the Jews (a division in sphere of work, like home and foreign missions, not a denominational cleavage). Here, then, for the first time, Paul has had an opportunity to talk the matter over with the apostolic teachers, and they agree. The Judaizers will have no support from the apostles. The battle was really won in their private conference. In the second public meeting (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'6-29\');">Ac 15:6-29</a>) all goes smoothly enough. Ample opportunity for free discussion is offered. Then Peter shows how God had used him to preach to the Romans, and how the Jews themselves had to believe on Christ in order to be saved. He opposed putting a yoke on the Gentiles that the Jews could not bear. There was a pause, and then Barnabas and Paul (note the order here: courtesy to Barnabas) spoke again. After another pause, James, the president of the conference, the brother of the Lord Jesus, and a stedfast Jew, spoke. He cited <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,11);">Am 9:11</a>f to show that God had long ago promised a blessing to the Gentiles. He suggests liberty to the Gentiles with the prohibition of pollution of idols, of fornication, things strangled, and blood. His ideas are embodied in an unanimous decree which strongly commends "our beloved Barnabas and Paul" and disclaims responsibility for the visit of the Judaizers to Antioch. The Western text omits "things strangled" from the decree. If this is correct, the decree prohibits idolatry, fornication and murder (Wilson, Origin and Aim of the Acts of the Apostles, 1912, 55). At any rate, the decision is a tremendous victory for Paul and Barnabas. If the other reading is correct, Jewish feelings about things strangled and blood are to be respected. The decision was received with great joy in Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'30-35\');">Ac 15:30-35</a>). Some time later Peter appears at Antioch in the fullest fellowship with Paul and Barnabas in their work, and joins them in free social intercourse with the Gentiles, as he had timidly done in the home of Cornelius, till "certain came from James" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,11);">Ga 2:11</a>f), and probably threatened to have Peter up before the church again (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,2);">Ac 11:2</a>) on this matter, claiming that James agreed with them on the subject. This I do not believe was true in the light of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,24);">Ac 15:24</a>, where a similar false claim is discredited, since James had agreed with Paul in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,19);">Ac 15:19</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,9);">Ga 2:9</a>f). The new ground for complaint was that they had not settled the question of social relations with the Gentiles in the Jerusalem conference and that Peter had exceeded the agreement there reached. Peter quailed before the accusation, "fearing them that were of the circumcision" <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,12);">Ga 2:12</a>) To make it worse, "even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,13);">Ga 2:13</a>). Under this specious plea Paul was about to lose the fruit of the victory already won, and charged Peter to his face with Judaizing hypocrisy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'11-14\');">Ga 2:11-14</a>). It was a serious crisis. Peter had not changed his convictions, but had once more cowered in an hour of peril. Paul won both Barnabas and Peter to his side and took occasion to show how useless the death of Christ was if men could be saved by mere legalism (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,21);">Ga 2:21</a>). But the Judaizers had renewed the war, and they would keep it up and harry the work of Paul all over the world. Paul had the fight of his life upon his hands.<P>7. The Second Mission Campaign:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'36-\');">Ac 15:36-18:22</a>; <span class="noTag">1</span> and 2 Thessalonians, 49-51 (or 52) AD:<P>The impulse to go out again came from Paul. Despite the difference in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,13);">Ga 2:13</a>, he wished to go again with Barnabas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,36);">Ac 15:36</a>), but Barnabas insisted on taking along John Mark, which Paul was not willing to do because of his failure to stick to the work at Perga. So they agreed to disagree after "sharp contention" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,39);">Ac 15:39</a>f). Barnabas went with Mark to Cyprus, while Paul took Silas, "being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord." Luke follows the career of Paul, and so Barnabas drops out of view (compare later <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,6);">1Co 9:6</a>). Paul and Silas go "through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,41);">Ac 15:41</a>). They pass through the Cilician gates to Derbe, the end of the first tour, and go to Lystra. Here they pick up Timothy, who more than takes Mark\'s place in Paul\'s life. Timothy\'s mother was a Jewess and his father a Greek. Paul decided therefore to have him circumcised since, as a half-Jew, he would be especially obnoxious to the Jews. This case differed wholly from that of Titus, a Greek, where principle was involved. Here it was a matter merely of expediency. Paul had taken the precaution to bring along the decrees of the Conference at Jerusalem in case there was need of them. He delivered them to the churches. It has to be noted that in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,\'1-\');">1Co 8-10</a> and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,\'1-\');">Ro 14</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,\'1-\');">15</A>, when discussing the question of eating meats offered to idols, Paul does not refer to these decrees, but argues the matter purely from the standpoint of the principles involved. The Judaizers anyhow had not lived up to the agreement, but Paul is here doing his part by the decision. The result of the work was good for the churches (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,4);">Ac 16:4</a>).<P>When we come to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,6);">Ac 16:6</a>, we touch a crucial passage in the South-Galatian controversy. Ramsay (Christianity in the Roman Empire, chapters iii through vi; History and Geography of Asia Minor; Paul the Traveler, chapters v, vi, viii, ix; The Expositor, IV, viii, ix, "replies to Chase"; "Galatia," HDB; Commentary on Gal; The Cities of Paul; The Expositor T, 1912, 1913) has become by his able advocacy the chief champion of the view that Paul never went to Galatia proper or North Galatia, and that he addressed his epistle to South Galatia, the churches visited in the first tour. For a careful history of the whole controversy in detail, see Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 90-106, who strongly supports the view of Lightfoot, H.J. Holtzmann, Blass, Schurer, Denney, Chase, Mommsen, Steinmann, etc. There are powerful names with Ramsay, like Hausrath, Zahn, Barrlet, Garvie, Weizsacker, etc. The arguments are too varied and minute for complete presentation here. The present writer sees some very attractive features in the South-Galatian hypothesis, but as a student of language finds himself unable to overcome the syntax of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,6);">Ac 16:6</a>. The minor difficulty is the dropping of kai, between "Phrygia" and "Galatic region" by Ramsay. It is by no means certain that this is the idea of Luke. It is more natural to take the terms as distinct and coordinated by kai. In Paul the Traveler,212,Ramsay pleads for the aorist of subsequent time, but Moulton (Prolegomena, 133) will have none of it. With that I agree. The aorist participle must give something synchronous with or antecedent to the principal verb. In Expository Times for February,1913,220f; Ramsay comes back to the "construction of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,6);">Ac 16:6</a>." He admits that the weight of authority is against the Textus Receptus of the New Testament and in favor of dielthon...koluthentes. He now interprets the language thus: "Paul, having in mind at Lystra his plan of going on to Asia from Galatia, was ordered by the Spirit not to preach in Asia. He therefore made a tour through the Phrygio-Galatic region, which he had already influenced so profoundly from end to end (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,49);">13:49</A>)." But there is grave difficulty in accepting this interpretation as a solution of the problem. Ramsay here makes the narrative in 16:6 resumptive and takes us back to the standpoint of 16:1 at Lystra. The proper place for such a forecast was in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,1);">16:1</A>, or at most before <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,4);">16:4</A>, which already seems to mark an advance beyond Lystra to Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia: "and as they went on their way through the cities."<P>Besides, "the Phrygio-Galatic region" lay between Lystra and Asia, and, according to Ramsay, after the prohibition in Lystra, he went straight on toward Asia. This is certainly very artificial and unlike the usual procedure. According to the other view, Paul had already visited the churches in Lycaonia and Pisidia on his former visit. He wished to go on west into Asia, probably to Ephesus, but was forbidden by the Holy Spirit, and as a result turned northward through Phrygia and the regions of Galatia, using both terms in the ethnographic sense. Paul was already in the province of Galatia at Derbe and Lystra. The matter has many "ins and outs" and cannot be argued further here. It is still in debate, but the present interpretation is in harmony with the narrative in Acts.<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GALATIA">GALATIA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GALATIANS,+EPISTLE+TO+THE">GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE</a>.<P>By this view Paul had not meant to stop in Galatia proper and did so only because of an attack of illness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,13);">Ga 4:13</a>). It is possible that Luke may have come to his rescue here. At any rate, he finally pushes on opposite Mysia and Bithynia in the extreme north and was forbidden by the Spirit from going on into Bithynia. So they came down to Troas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,7);">Ac 16:7</a>f) when Luke ("we," <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,10);">Ac 16:10</a>) appears on the scene and the Macedonian call comes to Paul. Thus Paul is led out of Asia into Europe and carries the gospel successively to Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth. The gospel is finally planted in the great provinces of Macedonia and Achaia. In Philippi, a Roman colony and military outpost, Paul finds few Jews and has to go out to a prayer-place to find a few Jewish women to whom he can tell the story of Jesus. But he gains a start with Lydia and her household, and soon arouses the hostility of a company of men who were making money out of a poor girl\'s powers of divination. But before Paul and Silas leave the jail, the jailer is himself converted, and a good church is established. At Thessalonica Paul has great success and arouses the jealousy of the Jews who gather a rabble and raise a disturbance and charge it up to Paul. At Philippi appeal was made to prejudice against Jews. At Thessalonica the charge is made that Paul preaches Jesus as a rival king to Caesar. In Berea Paul and Silas have even more success till the Jews come from Thessalonica and drive Paul out again. Timothy, who has come out from Philippi where Luke has remained, and Silas stay in Berea while Paul hurries on to Athens with some of the brethren, who return with the request for Timothy and Silas "to come to him with all speed." Apparently Timothy did come (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,1);">1Th 3:1</a>f), but Paul soon sent him back to Thessalonica because of his anxiety about conditions there. Left alone in Athens, Paul\'s spirit was stirred over the idolatry before his eyes. He preaches in the synagogues and argues with the Stoics and Epicureans in the Agora who make light of his pretensions to philosophy as a "babbler" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,18);">Ac 17:18</a>). But curiosity leads them to invite him to speak on the Areopagus. This notable address, all alive to his surroundings, was rather rudely cut short by their indifference and mockery, and Paul left Athens with small results for his work. He goes over to Corinth, the great commercial city of the province, rich and with bizarre notions of culture. Paul determined (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,\'1-5\');">1Co 2:1-5</a>) to be true to the cross, even after his experience in Athens. He gave them, not the flashy philosophy of the sophists, but the true Wisdom of God in simple words, the philosophy of the cross of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,\'17-\');">1Co 1:17-3:4</a>). In Corinth Paul found fellow-helpers in Aquila and Priscilla, just expelled from Rome by Claudius. They have the same trade of tentmakers and live together (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,\'1-4\');">Ac 18:1-4</a>), and Paul preached in the synagogues. Paul is cheered by the coming of Timothy and Silas from Thessalonica (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,5);">Ac 18:5</a>) with supplies from Philippi, as they had done while in Thessalonica (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,15);">Php 4:15</a>f). This very success led to opposition, and Paul has to preach in the house of Titus Justus. But the work goes on till Gallio comes and a renewed effort is made to have it stopped, but Gallio declines to interfere and thus practically makes Christianity a religio licita, since he treats it as a variety of Judaism. While here, after the arrival of Timothy and Silas, Paul writes the two letters to Thessalonica, the first of his 13 epistles. They are probably not very far apart in time, and deal chiefly with a grievous misunderstanding on their part concerning the emphasis placed by him on the Man of Sin and the Second Coming. Paul had felt the power of the empire, and his attention is sharply drawn to the coming conflict between the Roman empire and the kingdom of God. He treats it in terms of apocalyptic eschatology. When he leaves Corinth, it is to go by Ephesus, with Aquila and Priscilla whom he leaves there with the promise to return. He goes down to Caesarea and "went up and saluted the church" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,22);">Ac 18:22</a>), probably at Jetus (fourth visit), and "went down to Antioch." If he went to Jerusalem, it was probably incidental, and nothing of importance happened. He is back once again in Antioch after an absence of some 3 or 4 years.<P>8. The Third Mission Campaign:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,\'23-\');">Ac 18:23-21:14</a>; <span class="noTag">1</span> and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Romans, 52 (or 53)-57 (or 58) AD:<P>The stay of Paul at Antioch is described as "sometime" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,23);">Ac 18:23</a>). Denney (Standard Bible Dictionary) conjectures that Paul\'s brief stay at Jerusalem (see above) was due to the fact that he found that the Judaizers had organized opposition there against him in the absence of the apostles, and it was so unpleasant that he did not stay. He Suggests also that the Judaizers had secured letters of commendation from the church for their emissaries (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,1);">2Co 3:1</a>) to Corinth and Galatia, who were preaching "another Jesus" of nationalism and narrowness, whom Paul did not preach (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,6);">Ga 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,4);">2Co 11:4</a>). Both Denney and Findlay follow Neander, Wieseler, and Sabatier in placing here, before Paul starts out again from Antioch, the visit of certain "from James" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,12);">Ga 2:12</a>), who overpowered Peter for the moment. But I have put this incident as more probably before the disagreement with Barnabas over Mark, and as probably contributing to that breach at the beginning of the second tour. It is not necessary to suppose that the Judaizers remained acquiescent so long.<P>Paul seems to have set out on the third tour alone<6E>unless Timothy came back with him, of which there is no evidence save that he is with Paul again in Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,22);">Ac 19:22</a>). What became of Silas? Paul "went through the region of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order, establishing all the disciples" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,23);">Ac 18:23</a>), the opposite order to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,6);">Ac 16:6</a>, "through the region of Phrygia and Galatia." According to the North-Galatian view, here followed, he went through the northern part of the province, passing through Galatia proper and Phrygia on his way west to Ephesus. Luke adds, "Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,1);">Ac 19:1</a>). The ministry of Apollos in Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,\'24-28\');">Ac 18:24-28</a>) had taken place before Paul arrived, though Aquila and Priscilla were still on hand. Apollos passed over to Corinth and innocently became the occasion of such strife there (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,\'1-\');">1Co 1-4</a>) that he left and refused to return at Paul\'s request (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,12);">1Co 16:12</a>). Paul has a ministry of 3 years, in round numbers, in Ephesus, which is full of excitement and anxiety from the work there and in Corinth. He finds on his arrival some ill-informed disciples of John the Baptist who are ignorant of the chief elements of John\'s teaching about repentance, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,\'2-7\');">Ac 19:2-7</a>), matters of which Apollos had knowledge, though he learned more from Priscilla and Aquila, but there is no evidence that he was rebaptized as was true of the 12 disciples of John (Robertson, John the Loyal, 290-303). The boldness of Paul in Ephesus led in 3 months to his departure from the synagogue to the schoolhouse of Tyrannus, where he preached for 2 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,\'8-10\');">Ac 19:8-10</a>) with such power that "all they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord." It is not strange later to find churches at Colosse and Hierapolis in the Lycus Valley (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,11);">Re 1:11</a>). Paul has a sharp collision with the strolling Jewish exorcists that led to the burning of books of magic by the wholesale (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,\'11-20\');">Ac 19:11-20</a>), another proof of the hold that magic and the mysteries had upon the Orient. Ephesus was the seat of the worship of Diana whose wonderful temple was their pride. A great business in the manufacture of shrines of Diana was carried on here by Demetrius, and "this Paul" had hurt his trade so much that he raised an insurrection under the guise of piety and patriotism and might have killed Paul with the mob, if he could have got hold of him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,\'23-41\');">Ac 19:23-41</a>). It was with great difficulty that Paul was kept from going to the amphitheater, as it was. But here, as at Corinth, the Roman officer (the town clerk) defended Paul from the rage of his enemies (there the jealous Jews, here the tradesmen whose business suffered). He was apparently very ill anyhow, and came near death (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,9);">2Co 1:9</a>). All this seems to have hastened his departure from Ephesus sooner than Pentecost, as he had written to the Corinthians (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,8);">1Co 16:8</a>). His heart was in Corinth because of the discussions there over him and Apollos and Peter, by reason of the agitation of the Judaizers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,\'10-17\');">1Co 1:10-17</a>). The household of Chloe had brought word of this situation to Paul. He had written the church a letter now lost (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,9);">1Co 5:9</a>). They had written him a letter (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,1);">1Co 7:1</a>). They sent messengers to Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,17);">1Co 16:17</a>). He had sent Timothy to them (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,17);">1Co 4:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,10);">16:10</a>), who seems not to have succeeded in quieting the trouble. Paul wrote 1Co (spring of 56), and then sent Titus, who was to meet him at Troas and report results (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,12);">2Co 2:12</a>f). He may also have written another letter and sent it by Titus (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,3);">2Co 2:3</a>f). The sudden departure from Corinth brought Paul to Troas ahead of time, but he could not wait for Titus, and so pushed on with a heavy heart into Macedonia, where he met him, and he had good and bad news to tell (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,12);">2Co 2:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,\'5-13\');">7:5-13</a>). The effect on Paul was instantaneous. He rebounded to hope and joy (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,14);">2Co 2:14</a>) in a glorious defense of the ministry of Jesus (compare Robertson, The Glory of the Ministry; Paul\'s Exultation in Preaching), with a message of cheer to the majority. of the church that had sustained Paul and with instructions (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,\'1-\');">2Co 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,\'1-\');">9</a>) about the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem, which must be pushed to a completion by Titus and two other brethren (possibly also Luke, brother of Titus, and Erastus). Timothy and Erastus had been sent on ahead to Macedonia from Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,22);">Ac 19:22</a>), and Timothy sends greetings with Paul to the Corinthians in a letter (2 Corinthians) which Paul now forwards, possibly by Titus. The latter part of the epistle (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,\'1-\');">1Co 10-13</a>) deals with the stubborn minority who still resist the authority of Paul as an apostle. On the proposed treatment of these chapters as a separate epistle see the earlier part of this article. Paul seems to wait a while before going on to Corinth. He wishes the opposition to have time to repent. During this period he probably went round about to Illyricum (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,19);">Ro 15:19</a>). He spent three months in Greece (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,2);">Ac 20:2</a>f), probably the winter of 56 and 57.<P>We have placed Galatians in the early part of this stay in Corinth, though it could have been written while at Ephesus. Romans was certainly written while here, and they both treat the same general theme of justification by faith. Ramsay (Expos, February,1913,127-45) has at last come to the conclusion that Ga belongs to the date of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,1);">Ac 15:1</a>f. He bases this conclusion chiefly on the "absolute independence" of his apostleship claimed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,\'1-\');">Ga 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-\');">2</A>, which, he holds, he would not have done after the conference in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a>, which was "a sacrifice of complete independence." This is a curious interpretation, for in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-10\');">Ga 2:1-10</a> Paul himself tells of his recognition on terms of equality by Peter, John and James, and of his going to Jerusalem by "revelation," which was just as much "a sacrifice of complete independence" as we find in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a>. Besides, in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,5);">2Co 11:5</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,11);">12:11</A> Paul expressly asserts his equality (with all humility) with the very chiefest apostles, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,10);">1Co 15:10</a> he claims in so many words to have wrought more than all the apostles. Perhaps messengers from Galatia with the contributions from that region report the havoc wrought there by the Judaizers. Ga is a tremendous plea for the spiritual nature of Christianity as opposed to Jewish ceremonial legalism.<P>Paul had long had it in mind to go to Rome. It was his plan to do so while at Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,21);">Ac 19:21</a>) after he had gone to Jerusalem with the great collection from the churches of Asia, Galatia, Achaia, and Macedonia. He hoped that this collection would have a mollifying effect on the Jerusalem saints as that from Antioch had (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,29);">Ac 11:29</a>f). He had changed some details in his plans, but not the purpose to go to Jerusalem and then to Rome. Meanwhile, he writes the longest and most important letter of all to the Romans, in which he gives a fuller statement of his gospel, because they had not heard him preach, save his various personal friends who had gone there from the east (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,\'1-\');">Ac 16</a>). But already the shadow of Jerusalem is on his heart, and he asks their prayers in his behalf, as he faces his enemies in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,\'30-32\');">Ro 15:30-32</a>). He hopes also to go on to Spain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,24);">Ro 15:24</a>), so as to carry the gospel to the farther west also. The statesmanship of Paul comes out now in great clearness. He has in his heart always anxiety for the churches that consumes him (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,28);">2Co 11:28</a>f). He was careful to have a committee of the churches go with him to report the collection (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,19);">2Co 8:19</a>f). Paul had planned to sail direct for Syria, but a plot on his life in Corinth led him to go by land via Macedonia with his companions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,\'2-4\');">Ac 20:2-4</a>). He tarried at Philippi while the rest went on to Troas. At Philippi Paul is joined again by Luke, who stays with him till Rome is reached. They celebrate the Passover (probably the spring of 57) in Philippi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,6);">Ac 20:6</a>). We cannot follow the details in Acts at Troas, the voyage through the beautiful Archipelago, to Miletus. There Paul took advantage of the stop to send for the elders of Ephesus to whom he gave a wonderful address (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,\'17-38\');">Ac 20:17-38</a>). They change ships at Patara for Phoenicia and pass to the right of Cyprus with its memories of Barnabas and Sergius Paulus and stop at Tyre, where Paul is warned not to go on to Jerusalem. The hostility of the Judaizers to Paul is now common talk everywhere. There is grave peril of a schism in Christianity over the question of Gentile liberty, once settled in Jerusalem, but unsettled by the Judaizers. At Caesarea Paul is greeted by Philip the evangelist and his four daughters (prophetesses). At Caesarea Paul is warned in dramatic fashion by Agabus (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,28);">Ac 11:28</a>) not to go on to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,9);">Ac 21:9</a>), but Paul is more determined than ever to go, even if he die (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,13);">Ac 20:13</a>). He had had three premonitions for long (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,22);">Ac 20:22</a>), but he will finish his course, cost what it may. He finds a friend at Caesarea in Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, who was to be the host of Paul in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,16);">Ac 21:16</a>).<P>9. Five Years a Prisoner:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,\'17-\');">Ac 21:17-28:31</a>; Philippians; Philemon; Colossians; Ephesians, 57-62 (or 63) AD:<P>Paul had hoped to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,16);">Ac 20:16</a>). He seems to have done so. Luke gives the story of Paul in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and the voyage to Rome in much detail. He was with him and considered this period of his ministry very important. The welcome from the brethren in Jerusalem was surprisingly cordial (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,17);">Ac 21:17</a>). On the very next day Paul and his party made a formal call on James and all the elders (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,18);">Ac 21:18</a>f), who gave a sympathetic hearing to the narrative of God\'s dealings with Paul and the Gentiles. He presented the alms (collection) in due form (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,17);">Ac 24:17</a>), though some critics have actually suggested that Paul used it to defray the expenses of the appeal to Caesar. Ramsay\'s notion that he may have fallen heir by now to his portion of his father\'s estate is quite probable. But the brethren wish to help Paul set himself right before the rank and file of the church in Jerusalem, who have been imposed upon by the Judaizers who have misrepresented Paul\'s real position by saying that he urged the Jewish Christians to give up the Mosaic customs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,21);">Ac 21:21</a>). The elders understand Paul and recall the decision of the conference at which freedom was guaranteed to the Gentiles, and they have no wish to disturb that (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,25);">Ac 21:25</a>). They only wish Paul to show that he does not object to the Jewish Christians keeping up the Mosaic regulations. They propose that Paul offer sacrifice publicly in the temple and pay the vows of four men, and then all will know the truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,23);">Ac 21:23</a>f). Paul does not hesitate to do that (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,26);">Ac 21:26</a>). He had kept the Jewish feasts (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,6);">Ac 20:6</a>) as Jesus had done, and the early disciples in Jerusalem. He was a Jew. He may have had a vow at Corinth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,18);">Ac 18:18</a>). He saw no inconsistency in a Jew doing thus after becoming a Christian, provided he did not make it obligatory on Gentiles. The real efficacy of the sacrifices lay in the death of Jesus for sin. Garvie (Life and Teaching of Paul, 173) calls this act of Paul "scarcely, worthy of his courage as a man or his faith in God." I cannot see it in that light. It is a matter of practical wisdom, not of principle. To have refused would have been to say that the charge was true, and it was not. So far as the record goes, this act of Paul accomplished its purpose in setting Paul in a right light before the church in Jerusalem. It took away this argument from the Judaizers. The trouble that now comes to Paul does not come from the Judaizers, but from "the Jews from Asia" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,27);">Ac 21:27</a>). If it be objected that the Jerusalem Christians seem to have done nothing to help Paul during his years of imprisonment, it can be said that there was little to be done in a legal way, as the matter was before the Roman courts very soon. The attack on Paul in the temple was while he was doing honor to the temple, engaged in actual worship offering sacrifices. But then Jews from Ephesus hated him so that they imagined that he had Greeks with him in the Jewish court, because they had seen him one day with Trophimus in the city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,27);">Ac 21:27</a>). It is a splendid illustration of the blindness of prejudice and hate. It was absolutely untrue, and the men who raised the hue and cry in the temple against Paul as the desecrator of the holy place and the Law and the people disappear, and are never heard of more (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,18);">Ac 24:18</a>f). But it will take Paul five years or more of the prime of his life to get himself out of the tangled web that will be woven about his head. Peril follows peril. He was almost mobbed, as often before, by the crowd that dragged him out of the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,30);">Ac 21:30</a>f). It would remind Paul of Stephen\'s fate. When the Roman captain rescued him and had him bound with two chains as a dangerous bandit, and had him carried by the soldiers to save his life, the mob yelled "Away with him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,36);">Ac 21:36</a>f), as they had done to Jesus. After the captain, astonished that "Paul the Egyptian assassin" can speak Greek, grants him permission to stand on the steps of the tower of Antonia to speak to the mob that clamored for his blood, he held their rapt attention by an address in Aramaic (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,2);">Ac 22:2</a>) in which he gave a defense of his whole career. This they heard eagerly till he spoke the word "Gentiles," at which they raged more violently than ever (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,21);">Ac 22:21</a>). At this the captain has Paul tied with thongs, not understanding his Aramaic speech, and is about to scourge him when Paul pleads his Roman citizenship, to the amazement of the centurion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,24);">Ac 22:24</a>). Almost in despair, the captain, wishing to know the charge of the Jews against Paul, brings him before the Sanhedrin. It is a familiar scene to Paul, and it is now their chance for settling old scores. Paul makes a sharp retort in anger to the high priest Ananias, for which he apologizes as if he was so angry that he had not noticed, but he soon divides the Sanhedrin hopelessly on the subject of the resurrection (compare the immunity of the disciples on that issue when Gamaliel scored the Sadducees in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,\'1-\');">Ac 5</a>). This was turning the tables on his enemies, and was justifiable as war. He claimed to be a Pharisee on this point, as he was still, as opposed to the Sadducees. The result was that Paul had to be rescued from the contending factions, and the captain knew no more than he did before (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,\'1-10\');">Ac 23:1-10</a>). That night "the Lord stood by him" and promised that he would go to Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,11);">Ac 23:11</a>). That was a blessed hope. But the troubles of Paul are by no means over. By the skill of his nephew he escaped the murderous plot of 40 Jews who had taken a vow not to eat till they had killed Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,\'12-24\');">Ac 23:12-24</a>). They almost succeeded, but Claudius Lysias sent Paul in haste with a band of soldiers to Caesarea to Felix, the procurator, with a letter in which he claimed to have rescued Paul from the mob, "having learned that he was a Roman" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,\'26-30\');">Ac 23:26-30</a>). At any rate he was no longer in the clutches of the Jews. Would Roman provincial justice be any better? Felix follows a perfunctory course with Paul and shows some curiosity about Christianity, till Paul makes him tremble with terror, a complete reversal of situations (compare Pilate\'s meanness before Jesus). But love of money from Paul or the Jews leads Felix to keep Paul a prisoner for two years, though convinced of his innocence, and to hand him over to Festus, his successor, because the Jews might make things worse for him if he released him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,\'1-\');">Ac 24</a>). The case of the Sanhedrin, who have now made it their own (or at least the Sadducean section), though pleaded by the Roman orator Tertullus, had fallen through as Paul calmly riddied their charges. Festus is at first at a loss how to proceed, but he soon follows the steps of Felix by offering to play into the hands of the Jewish leaders by sending Paul back to Jerusalem, whereupon Paul abruptly exercises his right of Roman citizenship by appealing to Caesar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,\'1-12\');">Ac 25:1-12</a>). This way, though a long one, offered the only ray of hope. The appearance of Paul before Agrippa and Bernice was simply by way of entertainment arranged by Festus to relieve his guests of ennui, but Paul seized the opportunity to make a powerful appeal to Agrippa that put him in a corner logically, though he wriggled out and declined to endorse Christianity, though confirming Paul\'s innocence, which Festus also had admitted (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,\'13-\');">Ac 25:13</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,\'1-32\');">26:32</a>). Paul was fortunate in the centurion Julius who took him to Rome, for he was kindly disposed to him at the start, and so it was all the way through the most remarkable voyage on record. Luke has surpassed his own record in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,\'1-\');">Ac 27</a>, in which he traces the voyage, stage by stage, with change of ship at Myra, delay at Fair Havens, Crete, and shipwreck on the island of Malta. More is learned about ancient seafaring from this chapter than from any other source (see the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHOENIX">PHOENIX</a>, and Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul, 1866). In it all Paul is the hero, both on the ships and in Malta. In the early spring of 60 another ship takes Paul and the other prisoners to Puteoli. Thence they go on to Rome, and enter by the Appian Way. News of Paul\'s coming had gone on before (his epistle had come 3 years ago), and he had a hearty welcome. But he is now an imperial prisoner in the hands of Nero. He has more liberty in his own hired house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,16,30);">Ac 28:16,30</a>), but he is chained always to a Roman soldier, though granted freedom to see his friends and to preach to the soldiers. Paul is anxious to remove any misapprehensions that the Jews in Rome may have about him, and tries to win them to Christ, and with partial success (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,\'17-28\');">Ac 28:17-28</a>). And here Luke leaves him a prisoner for 2 years more, probably because at this point he finishes the Book of Acts. But, as we have seen, during these years in Rome, Paul wrote Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians. He still has the churches on his heart. They send messengers to him, and he writes back to them. The incipient Gnosticism of the East has pressed upon the churches at Colosse and Laodicea, and a new peril confronts Christianity. The Judaizing controversy has died away with these years (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,1);">Php 3:1</a>ff for an echo of it), but the dignity and glory of Jesus are challenged. In the presence of the power of Rome Paul rises to a higher conception than even that of the person of Christ and the glory of the church universal. In due time Paul\'s case was disposed of and he was once more set free. The Romans were proverbially dilatory. It is doubtful if his enemies ever appeared against him with formal charges.<P>10. Further Travels:<P>The genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles is here assumed. But for them we should know nothing further, save from a few fragments in the early Christian writings. As it is, some few who accept the Pastoral Epistles seek to place them before 64 AD, so as to allow for Paul\'s death in that year from the Neronian persecution. In that case, he was not released. There is no space here to argue the question in detail. We can piece together the probable course of events. He had expected when in Corinth last to go on to Spain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,28);">Ro 15:28</a>), but now in Rome his heart turns back to the east again. He longs to see the Philippians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,23);">1:23</A>ff) and hopes to see Philemon in Colosse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,22);">Phm 1:22</a>). But he may have gone to Spain also, as Clement of Rome seems to imply (Clement ad Cor 5), and as is stated in the Canon of Muratori. He may have been in Spain when Rome was burned July 19, 64 AD. There is no evidence that Paul went as far as Britain. On his return East he left Titus in Crete (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,5);">Tit 1:5</a>). He touched at Miletus when he left Trophimus sick (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,20);">2Ti 4:20</a>) and when he may have met Timothy, if he did not go on to Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,3);">1Ti 1:3</a>). He stopped at Troas and apparently expected to come back here, as he left his cloak and books with Carpus (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,13);">2Ti 4:13</a>). He was on his way to Macedonia (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,3);">1Ti 1:3</a>), whence he writes Timothy in 65-67 a letter full of love and counsel for the future. Paul is apprehensive of the grave perils now confronting Christianity. Besides the Judaizers, the Gnostics, the Jews and the Romans, he may have had dim visions of the conflict with the mystery-religions. It was a syncretistic age, and men had itching ears. But Paul is full of sympathy and tender solicitude for Timothy, who must push on the work and get ready for it. Paul expects to spend the winter in Nicopolis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,12);">Tit 3:12</a>), but is apparently still in Macedonia when he writes to Titus a letter on lines similar to those in 1 Timothy, only the note is sharper against Judaism of a certain type. We catch another glimpse of Apollos in <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,13);">Tit 3:13</a>. Paul hits off the Cretans in <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,10);">1:10</A> with a quotation from Epimenides, one of their own poetic prophets.<P>11. Last Imprisonment and Death:<P>68 (or 67) AD:<P>When Paul writes again to Timothy he has had a winter in prison, and has suffered greatly from the cold and does not wish to spend another winter in the Mamertine (probably) prison (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,13,21);">2Ti 4:13,21</a>). We do not know what the charges now are. They may have been connected with the burning of Rome. There were plenty of informers eager to win favor with Nero. Proof was not now necessary. Christianity is no longer a religio licita under the shelter of Judaism. It is now a crime to be a Christian. It is dangerous to be seen with Paul now, and he feels the desertion keenly (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,15);">2Ti 1:15</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,10);">4:10</a>). Only Luke, the beloved physician, is with Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,11);">2Ti 4:11</a>), and such faithful ones as live in Rome still in hiding (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,21);">2Ti 4:21</a>). Paul hopes that Timothy may come and bring Mark also (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,11);">2Ti 4:11</a>). Apparently Timothy did come and was put into prison (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,23);">Heb 13:23</a>). Paul is not afraid. He knows that he will die. He has escaped the mouth of the lion (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,17);">2Ti 4:17</a>), but he will die (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,18);">2Ti 4:18</a>). The Lord Jesus stood by him, perhaps in visible presence (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,17);">2Ti 4:17</a>). The tradition is, for now Paul fails us, that Paul, as a Roman citizen, was beheaded on the Ostian Road just outside of Rome. Nero died June, 68 AD, so that Paul was executed before that date, perhaps in the late spring of that year (or 67). Perhaps Luke and Timothy were with him. It is fitting, as Findlay suggests, to let Paul\'s words in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,\'6-8\');">2Ti 4:6-8</a> serve for his own epitaph. He was ready to go to be with Jesus, as he had long wished to be (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,23);">Php 1:23</a>).``150';
isbe[6751]='Paul, the Apostle, 6`VI. Gospel.<P>I had purposed to save adequate space for the discussion of Paul\'s theology, but that is not now possible. A bare sketch must suffice. Something was said (see above on his epistles and equipment) about the development in Paul\'s conception of Christ and his message about Him. Paul had a gospel which he called his own (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,16);">Ro 2:16</a>). I cannot agree with the words of Deissmann (St. Paul, 6): "St. Paul theologian looks backward toward rabbinism. As a religious genius Paul\'s outlook is forward into a future of universal history." He did continue to use some rabbinical methods of argument, but his theology was not rabbinical. And he had a theology. He was the great apostle and missionary to the heathen. He was a Christian statesman with far-seeing vision. He was the loving pastor with the shepherd heart. He was the great martyr for Christ. He was the wonderful preacher of Jesus. But he was also "Paul theologian" (Garvie, Life and Teaching of Paul, chapter v). There are two ways of studying his teaching. One is to take it by groups of the epistles, the purely historical method, and that has some advantages (compare Sabatier, The Apostle Paul). But at bottom Paul has the same message in each group, though with varying emphasis due to special exigencies. The same essential notes occur all through. The more common method, therefore, is to Study his gospel topically, using all the epistles for each topic. A measure of historical development may still be observed. Only the chief notes in Paul\'s gospel can be mentioned here. Even so, one must not turn to his epistles for a complete system of doctrine. The epistles are "occasional letters, pieces de circonstance" (Findlay, HDB), and they do not profess, not even Romans, to give a full summary of Christian doctrine. They are vital documents that throb with life. There is no theological manual in them. But Paul\'s gospel is adequately stated repeatedly. Paul\'s message is Christocentric. Jesus as Messiah he preached at once on his conversion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,20,22);">Ac 9:20,22</a>). He knew already the current Jewish Messianism to which Jesus did not correspond. The acceptance of Jesus as He was (the facts about Him and teachings) revolutionized his Messianic conceptions, his view of God, and his view of man. "When he takes and uses the Messianic phraseology of his day, he fills it with a meaning new and rich" (Rostron, Christology of Paul, 31). Paul was not merely a new creature himself, but he had a new outlook: "Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more. Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new. But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'16-19\');">2Co 5:16-19</a>). Perhaps no single passage in Paul\'s Epistles tells us more than this one of the change in Paul\'s theological conceptions wrought by his conversion. His view of Christ as the revealer of God (God in Christ) and the manifestation of love for men (of God, who reconciled us to Himself, reconciling the world to Himself) and the means (through Christ) by whom God is able to forgive our sins ("not reckoning unto them their trespasses") on the basis of the atoning death of Christ ("wherefore"; for this see <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,14);">2Co 5:14</a>f just before <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,16);">5:16</a>) with whom the believer has vital union ("in Christ") and who transforms the nature and views of the believer, is here thoroughly characteristic. Paul\'s passion is Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,14);">2Co 5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,21);">Php 1:21</a>). To gain Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,8);">Php 3:8</a>), to know Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,10);">Php 3:10</a>), to be found in Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,9);">Php 3:9</a>), to know Christ as the mystery of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,2);">Col 2:2</a>f), to be hid with Christ in God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,3);">Col 3:3</a>)<29>this with the new Paul is worth while. Thus Paul interprets God and man, by his doctrine of Christ. To him Jesus is Christ and Christ is Jesus. He has no patience with the incipient Cerinthian Gnosticism, nor with the docetic Gnosticism that denied the true humanity of Jesus. The real mystery of God is Christ, not the so-called mystery-religions. Christ has set us free from the bondage of ceremonial legalism. We are free from the curse of the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,13);">Ga 3:13</a>). Grace is the distinctive word for the gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,\'1-\');">Ro 3-5</a>), but it must lead to sanctification (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'1-\');">Ro 6-8</a>), not license (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,\'1-\');">Col 3</a>). Paul\'s Christology is both theocentric and anthropocentric, but it is theocentric first. His notion of redemption is the love of God seeking a world lost in sin and finding love\'s way, the only way consonant with justice, in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ His Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,\'21-31\');">Ro 3:21-31</a>). The sinner comes into union with God in Christ by faith in Christ as Redeemer and Lord. Henceforth he lives to God in. Christ by the help of the Holy Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'1-\');">Ro 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,\'1-\');">Ga 5</a>). Paul presents God as Father of all in one sense (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,6);">Eph 4:6</a>), but in a special sense of the believers in Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,15);">Ro 8:15</a>f). Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the pre-incarnate Son of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,9);">2Co 8:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'5-10\');">Php 2:5-10</a>), who is both God and man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,3);">Ro 1:3</a>f). With Paul the agent of creation is Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,15);">Col 1:15</a>f), who is also the head of the church universal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,18);">Col 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,22);">Eph 1:22</a>f). In the work of Christ Paul gives the central place to the cross (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,17);">1Co 1:17</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,2);">2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,20);">Col 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,\'13-18\');">Eph 2:13-18</a>). Sin is universal in humanity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,\'18-\');">Ro 1:18-3:20</a>), but the vicarious death of Christ makes redemption possible to all who believe (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,21);">Ro 3:21</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,\'6-11\');">Ga 3:6-11</a>). The redeemed constitute the kingdom of God or church universal, with Christ as head. Local bodies (churches) are the chief means for pushing the work of the kingdom. Paul knows two ordinances, both of which present in symbolic form the death of Christ for sin and the pledge of the believer to newness of life in Christ. These ordinances are baptism (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'1-11\');">Ro 6:1-11</a>) and the Lord\'s Supper (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,\'17-34\');">1Co 11:17-34</a>). If he knew the mystery-religions, they may have helped him by way of illustration to present his conception of the mystic union with Christ. Paul is animated by the hope of the second coming of Christ, which will be sudden (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,\'1-11\');">1Th 5:1-11</a>) and not probably at once (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,\'1-\');">2Th 2</a>), but was to be considered as always imminent (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,2);">1Th 5:2</a>). Meanwhile, death brings us to Christ, which is a glorious hope to Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'1-10\');">2Co 5:1-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,21);">Php 1:21</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,18);">2Ti 4:18</a>). But, while Paul was a theologian in the highest and best sense of the term, the best interpreter of Christ to men, he was also an ethical teacher. He did not divorce ethics from religion. He insisted strongly on the spiritual experience of Christ as the beginning and the end of it all, as opposed to mere ritualistic ceremonies which had destroyed the life of Judaism. But all the more Paul demanded the proof of life as opposed to mere profession. See <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'1-\');">Ro 6-8</a> in particular. In most of the epistles the doctrinal section is followed by practical exhortations to holy living. Mystic as Paul was, the greatest of all mystics, he was the sanest of moralists and had no patience with hypocrites or licentious pietists or idealists who allowed sentimentalism and emotionalism to take the place of righteoushess. His notion of the righteousness demanded by God and given by God included both sanctification and justification. In the end, the sinner who for Christ\'s sake is treated as righteous must be righteous. Thus the image of God is restored in man by the regenerating work of the Spirit of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,18);">2Co 3:18</a>). Paul sees God in the face of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,6);">2Co 4:6</a>), and the vision of Christ brings God to all who see.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Out of the vast Pauline literature the following selections may be mentioned:<P>(1) General Works:<P>Addis, Christianity and the Roman Empire, 1893; Bartlet, The Apostolic Age, 1899; Bohlig, Die Geisteskultur yon Tarsos, 1913; Clemen, Primitive Christianity and Its Non-Jewish Sources, 1912; Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, 1911; Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 1910; Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology, 1912; Dollinger, Gentile and Jew in the Courts of the Temple of Christ, translation, 1862; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity,1882,Darkness and Dawn, 1893; Ferrero, Greatness and Decline of Rome, 1908; Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire; Glover, Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, 1910; Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verst. d. New Testament, 1903; Hausrath, Time of the Apostles, translation; Neander, Planting and Training of the Christian Church, translation; McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, 1897; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire,1893,Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia,1895,The First Christian Century, 1911; Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 1910; Ropes, The Apostolic Age, 1906; Schurer, HJP; Weizsacker, The Apostolic Age in the Christian Church, 1894-95.<P>(2) Introductions:<P>E. Burton, Chronicle of Paul\'s Epistles; Clemen, Die Chron der Paulinischen Briefe,1893,Die Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Briefe, 1894; Findlay, Epistles of Paul the Apostle, 1893; Gloag, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, 1876; Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1900; Herr, Prolegomena to Romans and Ephesians, 1895; Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles,1909, Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, 1911, History of Early Christian Literature until Eusebius, 1897; Holtzmann, Einleitung3, 1892; James, Genuineness and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, 1906; Julicher, Introduction to the New Testament, 1903; Lake, Earlier Epistles of Paul, 1911; Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 1911; Peake, Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 1909; Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, 1892; R. Scott, Epistles of Paul, 1909; Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, 1903; von Soden, History of Early Christian Literature, 1906; B. Weiss, Present State of the Inquiry Concerning the Genuineness of Paul\'s Epistles, 1897; Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 1909.<P>(3) Commentaries:<P>For exegetical commentaries on special epistles see special articles For the ancients see Chrysostom for the Greeks, and Pelagius for the Latins. For the Middle Ages see Thomas Aquinas. For the later time see Beza, Calvin, Colet, Estius, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wettstein, Bengel. Among the moderns note Alford, Beet (Romans-Colossians), Boise, Bible for Home and School, Cambridge Bible for Schools, Cambridge Greek Testament, New Century Bible; Drummond, Epistles of Paul, Ellicott (all but Romans and 2 Corinthians), Expositor\'s Bible, Expositor\'s Greek Testament; Holtzmann, Hand-Comm. zum New Testament; Jewett (1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Galatians), Lightfoot (Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and Notes), Lietzmann, Handbuch zum New Testament; Meyer (translation, revised German editions), Zahn, Kommentar zum New Testament.<P>(4) Lives and Monographs:<P>Albrecht, Paulus der Apestel Jesu Christi, 1903; Bacon, The Story of Paul, 1904; Bartlet, article in Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition; Baring-Gould, A Study of Paul, 1897; Baur, The Apostle Paul(2), 1845; Bevan, Paul in the Light of Today, 1912; Bird, Paul of Tarsus, 1900; Campbell, Paul the Mystic, 1907; Chrysostom, Homiliae in Laude S. Pauli, Opera, volume II, edition Montf. (more critically in Field\'s edition); Clemen, Paulus, 1904; Cone, Paul the Man, the Missionary, 1898; Cohu, Paul in the Light of Recent Research, 1910; Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of Paul (many editions); Deissmann, Paul, 1912; Drescher, Das Leben Jesu bei Paulus, 1900; Drury, The Prison Ministry of Paul, 1910; Eadie, Paul the Preacher, 1859; Farrar, Life and Work of Paul (various editions); Erbes, Die Todestage der Apostel Paulus und Petrus, 1899; Fletcher, A Study of the Conversion of Paul, 1911; Forbes, Footsteps of Paul in Rome, 1899; Fouard, Paul and His Mission,1894,Last Years of Paul, 1897; Gardner, Religious Experience of Paul, 1911; Garvie, Life and Teaching of Paul,1909,Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 1911; Gilbert, Student\'s Life of Paul, 1899; Heim, Paulus, 1905; Honnicke, Chronologie des Lebens Pauli, 1904; Iverach, Paul, His Life and Time, 1890; Johnston, The Mission of Paul to the Roman Empire, 1909; M. Jones, Paul the Orator, 1910; Kennedy, Paul and the Mystery-Religions, 1913; Kohler, Zum Verstandnis d. Apostels Paulus, 1908; Lewin, Life and Epistles of Paul, 1875; Lock, Paul the Master Builder, 1905; Lyttleton, Observations on Saul\'s Conversion, 1774; Myers, Saint Paul (various editions); Matheson, Spiritual Development of Paul, 1891; Means, Paul and the Ante-Nicene Church, 1903; Noesgen, Paulus der Apostel der Heiden, 1908; Paley, Horae Paulinae, 1790; Ramsay, Paul the Traveler,1896,Pauline and Other Studies,1906,Cities of Paul,1908,Luke the Physician and Other Studies,1908,Pictures of the Apostolic Church, 1910; Renan, Paul, 1869; A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Paul,1909,The Glory of the Ministry or Paul\'s Exultation in Preaching, 1911; Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, 1896; Selden, In the Time of Paul, 1900; Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, 1912; Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul4, 1880; Speer, The Man Paul, 1900; Stalker, Life of Paul, 1889; Taylor, Paul the Missionary, 1882; Underhill, Divine Legation of Paul, 1889; Weinel, Paul (translation, 1906); Whyte, The Apostle Paul, 1903; Wilkinson, Epic of Saul,1891,Epic of Paul, 1897; Wrede, Paulus(2), 1907 (translation); Wright, Cities of Paul, 1907; Wynne, Fragmentary Records of Jesus of Nazareth by a Contemporary, 1887.<P>(5) Teaching:<P>A.B.D. Alexander, The Ethics of Paul, 1910; S.A. Alexander, Christianity of Paul, 1899; Anonymous, The Fifth Gospel, 1906; R. Allen, Christelegy of Paul, 1912; M. Arnold, Paul and Protestantism, 1897; Ball, Paul and the Roman Law, 1901; Breitenstein, Jesus et Paul, 1908; Bruce, Paul\'s Conception of Christianity, 1898; Bruckner, Die Entstehung der Paulinischen Christologie, 1903; Bultmann, Der Stil der Paulin. Predigt und die kyn. Diatribe, 1910; Chadwick, Social Teaching of Paul,1907,Pastoral Teaching of Paul, 1907; M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, 1909; Dickie, Culture of the Spiritual Life, 1905; Dickson, Paul\'s Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit, 1883; Du Bose, Gospel according to Paul, 1907; Dykes, Gospel according to Paul, 1888; Everett, Gospel of Paul, 1893; Feine, Paul as Theologian (translation, 1908); Greenough, Mind of Christ in Paul; Goguel, L\'Apotre Paul et Jesus Christ, 1904; Harford, The Gospel according to Paul, 1912; Hicks, "St. Paul and Hellenism," Stud. Bibl., IV; Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus, 1898; Julicher, Paulus und Jesus, 1907; Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus, 1906; Kennedy, Paul\'s Conceptions of Last Things, 1904; Knowling, Testimony of Paul to Christ (3rd edition, 1911); A. Meyer, Jesus or Paul? 1909; Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism, 1910; Montet, Essai sur la christologie de Saint Paul, 1906; Nageli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus, 1905; Oehler, Paulus und Jesus, 1908; Paterson, The Pauline Theology, 1903; Pfleidercr, Paulinismus,1873,Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity, 1885; Prat, La theologie de Saint Paul, 1907; Ramsay, The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day, 1913; Resch, Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu, 1904; Rostron, The Christology of Paul, 1912; Simon, Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus, 1897; Somerville, Paul\'s Conception of Christ, 1897; Stevens, The Pauline Theology, 1894; Thackeray, Relation of Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, 1900; J. Weiss, Paul and Jesus, 1909; Paul and Justification, 1913; Williams, A Plea for a Reconstruction of Paul\'s Doctrine of Justification, 1912; Wustmann, Jesus und Paulus, 1907; Zahn, Das Gesetz Gottes nach der Lehre des Apostels Paulus(2), 1892.``150';
isbe[6752]='Paul, Voyage And Shipwreck of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAUL,+THE+APOSTLE">PAUL, THE APOSTLE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHOENIX">PHOENIX</a>`1';
isbe[6753]='Pauline Theology`pol\'-in:<P><b>I. THE PREPARATION</b><P class="in15">1. The Pharisee<P class="in15">2. Saul and Sin<P class="in15">3. Primitive Christianity<P><b>II. THE CONVERSION</b><P class="in15">1. Christ<P class="in15">2. The Spirit<P class="in15">3. The Unio Mystica<P class="in15">4. Salvation<P class="in15">5. Justification<P><b>III. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS</b><P class="in15">1. Abolition of the Law<P class="in15">2. Gentiles<P class="in15">3. Redemption<P class="in15">4. Atonement<P class="in15">5. Moral Example<P class="in15">6. Function of the Law<P><b>IV. SPECIAL TOPICS</b><P class="in15">1. The Church<P class="in15">2. The Sacraments<hr /><P>I. The Preparation.<P>In order to understand the development of Paul\'s theological system, it is necessary to begin with his beliefs as a Pharisee. The full extent of these beliefs, to be sure, is not now ascertainable, for Pharisaism was a rule of conduct rather than a system of dogmas, and great diversity of opinions existed among Pharisees. Yet there was general concurrence in certain broad principles, while some of Paul\'s own statements enable us to specify his beliefs still more closely.<P>1. The Pharisee:<P>Saul the Pharisee believed that God was One, the Creator of all things. In His relation to His world He was transcendent, and governed it normally through His angels. Certain of these angelic governors had been unfaithful to their trust and had wrought evil, although God still permitted them to bear rule for a time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,15);">Col 2:15</a>; compare Enoch 89:65). And evil had come into humanity through the transgression of the first man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,12);">Ro 5:12</a>; compare 2Esdras 7:118). To lead men away from this evil God gave His Law, which was a perfect revelation of duty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,12);">Ro 7:12</a>), and this Law was illumined by the traditions of the Fathers, which the Pharisees felt to be an integral part of the Law itself. God was merciful and would pardon the offender against the Law, if he completely amended his ways. But imperfect reformation brought no certain hope of pardon. To a few specially favored individuals God had given the help of His Spirit, but this was not for the ordinary individual. The great majority of mankind (compare 2Esdras 7:49-57), including all Gentiles, had no hope of salvation. In a very short time the course of the world would be closed. With God, from before the beginning of creation, there was existing a heavenly being, the Son of man of <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,13);">Da 7:13</a>, and He was about to be made manifest. (That Saul held the transcendental Messianic doctrine is not to be doubted.) As the world was irredeemably bad, this Messiah would soon appear, cause the dead to rise, hold the Last Judgment and bring from heaven the "Jerus that is above" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,26);">Ga 4:26</a>), in which the righteous would spend a blessed eternity.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHARISEES">PHARISEES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MESSIAH">MESSIAH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAROUSIA">PAROUSIA</a>.<P>2. Saul and Sin:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,\'7-25\');">Ro 7:7-25</a> throws a further light on Saul\'s personal beliefs. The Old Testament promised pardon to the sinner who amended his ways, but the acute moral sense of Saul taught him that he could never expect perfectly to amend his ways. The 10th Commandment was the stumbling-block. Sins of deed and of word might perhaps be overcome, but sins of evil desires stayed with him, despite his full knowledge of the Law that branded them as sinful. Indeed, they seemed stimulated rather than suppressed by the divine precepts against them. With the best will in the world, Saul\'s efforts toward perfect righteousness failed continually and gave no promise of ever succeeding. He found himself thwarted by something that he came to realize was ingrained in his very nature and from which he could never free himself. Human nature as it is, the flesh (not "the material of the body"), contains a taint that makes perfect reformation impossible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,18);">Ro 7:18</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,3);">Ro 8:3</a>, etc.). Therefore, as the Law knows no pardon for the imperfectly reformed, Saul felt his future to be absolutely black. What he longed for was a promise of pardon despite continued sin, and that the Law precluded. (Any feeling that the temple sacrifices. would bring forgiveness had long since been obsolete in educated Judaism.)<P>There is every reason to suppose that Saul\'s experience was not unique at this period. Much has been written in recent years about the Jews\' confidence in God\'s mercy, and abundant quotations are brought from the Talmud in support of this. But the surviving portions of the literature of the Daniel-Aqiba period (165 BC-135 AD) give a different impression, for it is predominantly a literature of penitential prayers and confessions of sin, of pessimism regarding the world, the nation and one\'s self. In 2Esdras, in particular, Saul\'s experience is closely paralleled, and 2Esdras 7 (of course not in the King James Version) is one of the best commentaries ever written on <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,\'1-\');">Ro 7</a>.<P>3. Primitive Christianity:<P>Saul must have come in contact with Christianity very soon after Pentecost, at the latest. Some personal acquaintance with Christ is in no way impossible, irrespective of the meaning of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,16);">2Co 5:16</a>. But no one in Jerusalem, least of all a man like Saul, could have failed tq learn very early that there was a new "party" in Judaism. To his eyes this "party" would have about the following appearance: Here was a band of men proclaiming that the Messiah, whom all expected, would be the Jesus who had recently been crucified. Him the disciples were preaching as risen, ascended and sitting on God\'s right hand. They claimed that He had sent on all His followers the coveted gift of the Spirit, and they produced miracles in proof of their claim. A closer investigation would show that the death of Jesus was being interpreted in terms of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a>, as a ransom for the nation. The inquirer would learn also that Jesus had given teaching that found constant and relentless fault with the Pharisees. Moreover, He had swept aside the tradition of the Fathers as worthless and had given the Law a drastic reinterpretation on the basis of eternal spiritual facts.<P>This inwardness must have appealed to Saul and he must have envied the joyous enthusiasm of the disciples. But to him Pharisaism was divine, and he was in a spiritual condition that admitted of no compromxses. Moreover, the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,13);">Ga 3:13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,23);">De 21:23</a>) cursed anyone who had been hanged on a tree, and the new party was claiming celestial Messiahship for a man who had met this fate. The system aroused Saul\'s burning hatred; he appointed himself (perhaps stimulated by his moral desperation) to exterminate the new religion, and in pursuit of his mission he started for Damascus.<P>Saul must have gained a reasonable knowledge of Christ\'s teachings in this period of antagonism. He certainly could not have begun to persecute the faith without learning what it was, and in the inevitable discussions with his victims he must have learned still more, even against his will. This fact is often overlooked.<P>II. The Conversion.<P>1. Christ:<P>The immediate content of Paul\'s conversion was the realization that the celestial Messiah was truly Jesus of Nazareth. This was simply the belief of the primitive church and was the truth for which Christ had died (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,62);">Mr 14:62</a>). But it involved much. It made Christ the Son of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,32);">Ro 8:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,4);">Ga 4:4</a>, etc.), "firstborn of (i.e. "earlier than") all creation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,15);">Col 1:15</a>), "existing in the form of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,6);">Php 2:6</a>) and "rich" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,9);">2Co 8:9</a>). In the Messiah are "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,3);">Col 2:3</a>), to be manifested at the end of time when the Messiah shall appear as the Judge of all (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a>, etc.), causing the resurrection of the dead (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,45);">1Co 15:45</a>, etc.). All this was given by Paul\'s former beliefs and had been claimed by Christ for Himself. That this Messiah had become man was a fact of the immediate past (the reality of the manhood was no problem at this period). As Messiah His sinlessness was unquestioned, while the facts of His life proved this sinlessness also. His teaching was wholly binding (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,10,11);">1Co 7:10,11</a>; that the writer of these words could have spared any effort to learn the teaching fully is out of the question). The conversion experience was proof sufficient of the resurrection, although for missionary purposes Paul used other evidence as well (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'1-11\');">1Co 15:1-11</a>).<P>Faith in this Messiah brought the unmistakable experience of the Holy Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,2);">Ro 8:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,2);">Ga 3:2</a>, etc.; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,17);">Ac 9:17</a>), demonstrating Christ\'s Lordship (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,3);">1Co 12:3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,33);">Ac 2:33</a>). So "the head of every man is Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,3);">1Co 11:3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,18);">Col 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,22);">Eph 1:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,15);">4:15</a>), with complete control of the future (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,25);">1Co 15:25</a>), and all righteous men are His servants ("slaves," <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,1);">Ro 1:1</a>, etc.). To Him men may address their prayers (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,8);">2Co 12:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,2);">1Co 1:2</a>, etc.; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,23);">Ac 14:23</a>).<P>Further reflection added to the concepts. As the Lordship of Christ was absolute, the power of all hostile beings must have been broken also (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,38);">Ro 8:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'9-11\');">Php 2:9-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,15);">Col 2:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'21-23\');">Eph 1:21-23</a>, etc.). The Being who had such significance for the present and the future could not have been without significance for the past. "In all things" He must have had "the preeminence" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,18);">Col 1:18</a>). It was He who ministered to the Israelites at the Exodus (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,4,9);">1Co 10:4,9</a>). In fact He was not only "before all things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,17);">Col 1:17</a>), but "all things have been created through him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,16);">Col 1:16</a>). Wisdom and Logos concepts may have helped Paul in reaching these conclusions, which in explicit statement are an advance on Christ\'s own words. But the conclusions were inevitable.<P>Fitting these data of religious fact into the metaphysical doctrine of God was a problem that occupied the church for the four following centuries. After endless experimenting the only conclusion was shown to be that already reached by Paul in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,5);">Ro 9:5</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,13);">Tit 2:13</a>, the English Revised Version, the American Revised Version margin), that Christ is God. To be sure, Paul\'s terminology, carried over from his pre-Christian days, elsewhere reserves "God" for the Father (and compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,28);">1Co 15:28</a>). But the fact of this theology admits only of the conclusion that was duly drawn.<P>2. The Spirit:<P>A second fact given directly by the conversion was the presence of the Spirit, where the actual experience transcended anything that had been dreamed of. Primarily the operation of the Spirit was recognized in vividly supernatural effects (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,19);">Ro 15:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,\'5-11\');">1Co 12:5-11</a>, etc.; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,12);">2Co 12:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,4);">Ac 2:4</a>), but Paul must at first have known the presence of the Spirit through the assurance of salvation given him, a concept that he never wearies of expressing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,16,23);">Ro 8:16,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,6);">Ga 4:6</a>, etc.). The work of the Spirit in producing holiness in the soul needs no comment (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOLY+SPIRIT">HOLY SPIRIT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SANCTIFICATION">SANCTIFICATION</a>), but it is characteristic of Paul that it is on this part of the Spirit\'s activity, rather than on the miraculous effects, that he lays the emphasis. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a>); the greatest miracles without love are more than useless (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,\'1-3\');">1Co 13:1-3</a>); in such sayings Paul touched the depths of the purest teaching of Christ. To be sure, in the Synoptic Gospels the word "Spirit" is not often on Christ\'s lips, but there is the same conception of a life proceeding from a pure center (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,22);">Mt 6:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,17);">7:17</a>, etc.) in entire dependence on God.<P>Further reflection and observation taught Paul something of the greatest importance for Christian theology. In prayer the Spirit appeared distinguished from the Father as well as from the Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,26);">Ro 8:26</a>f; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,10);">1Co 2:10</a>f), giving three terms that together express the plenitude of the Deity (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,14);">2Co 13:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,3,6,13);">Eph 1:3,6,13</a>, etc.), with no fourth term ever similarly associated.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRINITY">TRINITY</a>.<P>3. The Unio Mystica:<P>The indwelling of the divine produced by the Spirit is spoken of indifferently as the indwelling of the Spirit, or of the Spirit of Christ, or of Christ Himself (all three terms in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'9-11\');">Ro 8:9-11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,12);">1Co 2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,6);">Ga 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,17);">Eph 3:17</a>, etc.). The variations are in part due to the inadequacy of the Old terminology (so <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,17);">2Co 3:17</a>), in part to the nature of the subject. Distinctions made between the operations of the persons of the Trinity on the soul can never be much more than verbal, and the terms are freely interchangeable. At all events, through the Spirit Christ is in the believer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,10);">Ro 8:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,19);">4:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,17);">Eph 3:17</a>), or, what is the same thing, the believer is in Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,11);">Ro 6:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,1);">8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,7);">16:7</a>, etc.). "We have become united with him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,5);">Ro 6:5</a>, sumphutoi, "grown together with") in an union once and for all effected (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,27);">Ga 3:27</a>) and yet always to be made more intimate (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,14);">Ro 13:14</a>). The union so accomplished makes the man "a new creature" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,17);">2Co 5:17</a>).<P>4. Salvation:<P>Paul now saw within himself a dual personality. His former nature, the old man, still persisted, with its impulses, liability to temptation, and inertnesses. The "flesh" still existed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,17);">Ga 5:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,12);">Ro 8:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,14);">13:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,22);">Eph 4:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,12);">Php 3:12</a>, etc.). On the other hand there was fighting in him against this former nature nothing less than the whole power of Christ, and its final victory could not be uncertain for a moment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,12);">Ro 6:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,2,10);">8:2,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,16);">Ga 5:16</a>, etc.). Indeed, it is possible to speak of the believer as entirely spiritual (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,11,22);">Ro 6:11,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,9);">8:9</a>, etc.), as already in the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,13);">Col 1:13</a>), as already sitting in heavenly places (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,6);">Eph 2:6</a>). Of course Paul had too keen an appreciation of reality to regard believers as utterly sinless (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,12);">Php 3:12</a>, etc.), and his pages abound in reproofs and exhortations. But the present existence of remnants of sin had no final terrors, for the ultimate victory over sin was certain, even if it was not to be complete until the last day when the power of God would redeem even the present physical frame (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,11);">Ro 8:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,21);">Php 3:21</a>, etc.).<P>As the first man to belong to\'the higher order, and as the point from which the race could take a fresh start, Christ could justly be termed a new Adam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'45-49\');">1Co 15:45-49</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,\'12-21\');">Ro 5:12-21</a>). If <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,46);">1Co 15:46</a> has any relation to the PhiIonic doctrine of the two Adams, it is a polemic against it. Such a polemic would not be unlikely.<P>5. Justification:<P>A most extraordinary fact, to the former Pharisee, was that this experience had been gained without conscious effort and even against conscious effort (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,7);">Php 3:7</a>f). After years of fruitless striving a single act of self-surrender had brought him an assurance that he had despaired of ever attaining. And this act of self-surrender is what Paul means by "faith," "faith without works." This faith is naturally almost anything in the world rather than a mere intellectual acknowledgment of a fact (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,19);">Jas 2:19</a>), and is an act of the whole man, too complex for simple analysis. It finds, however, its perfect statement in Christ\'s reference to \'receiving the kingdom of God as a little child\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,15);">Mr 10:15</a>). By an act of simple yielding Paul found himself no longer in dread of his sins; he was at peace with God, and confident as to his future; in a word, "justified." In one sense, to be sure, "works" were still involved, for without the past struggles the result would never have been attained. A desire, however imperfect, to do right is a necessary preparation for justification, and the word has no meaning to a man satisfied to be sunk in complete selfishness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,2);">Ro 6:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,8);">3:8</a>, etc.). This desire to do right, which Paul always presupposes, and the content given "faith" are sufficient safeguards against antinomianism. But the grace given is in no way commensurate with past efforts, nor does it grow out of them. It is a simple gift of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,23);">Ro 6:23</a>).<P>III. Further Developments.<P>1. Abolition of the Law:<P>The adoption by Paul of the facts given by his conversion (and the immediate conclusions that followed from them) involved, naturally, a readjustment and a reformation of the other parts of his belief. The process must have occupied some time, if it was ever complete during his life, and must have been affected materially by his controversies with his former co-religionists and with very many Christians.<P>Fundamental was the problem of the Law. The Law was perfectly clear that he<68>and only he<68>who performed it would live. But life was found through faith in Christ, while the Law was not fulfilled. There could be no question of compromise between the two positions; they were simply incompatible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,5);">Ro 10:5</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,16);">Ga 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,11);">3:11</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,7);">Php 3:7</a>). One conclusion only was possible: "Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,4);">Ro 10:4</a>). As far as concerned the believer, the Law was gone. Two tremendous results followed. One was the immense simplification of what we call "Christian ethics," which were now to be determined by the broadest general principles of right and wrong and no longer by an elaborate legalistic construing of God\'s commands (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,\'8-10\');">Ro 13:8-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a>f; etc.; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\'29-31\');">Mr 12:29-31</a>). To be sure, the commandments might be quoted as convenient expressions of moral duty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,2);">Eph 6:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,9);">1Co 9:9</a>, etc.; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,19);">Mr 10:19</a>), but they are binding because they are right, not because they are commandments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,16);">Col 2:16</a>). So, in Paul\'s moral directions, he tries to bring out always the principle involved, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,\'1-\');">Ro 14</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,\'1-\');">1Co 8</a> are masterpieces of the treatment of concrete problems by this method.<P>2. Gentiles:<P>The second result of the abolition of the Law was overwhelming. Gentiles had as much right to Christ as had the Jews, barring perhaps the priority of honor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,2);">Ro 3:2</a>, etc.) possessed by the latter. It is altogether conceivable, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,21);">Ac 22:21</a> implies, that Paul\'s active acceptance of this result was long delayed and reached only after severe struggles. The fact was utterly revolutionary, and although it was prophesied in the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,25);">Ro 9:25</a>f), yet \'the Messiah among you Gentiles\' remained the hidden mystery that God had revealed only in the last days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,26);">Col 1:26</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'3-6\');">Eph 3:3-6</a>, etc.). The struggles of the apostle in defense of this principle are the most familiar part of his career.<P>3. Redemption:<P>This consciousness of deliverance from the Law came to Paul in another way. The Law was meant for men in this world, but the union with Christ had raised him out of this world and so taken him away from the Law\'s control. In the Epistles this fact finds expression in an elaborately reasoned form. As Christ\'s nature is now a vital part of our nature, His death and resurrection are facts of our past as well. "Ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,3);">Col 3:3</a>). But "the law hath dominion over a man" only "for so long time as he liveth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,1);">Ro 7:1</a>). "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,4);">Ro 7:4</a>). Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,\'11-13\',20);">Col 2:11-13,20</a>, where the same argument is used to show that ritual observance is no longer necessary. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'1-14\');">Ro 6:1-14</a> this argument is made to issue in a practical exhortation. Through the death of Christ, which is our death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,4);">6:4</A>), we, like Him, are placed in a higher world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,5);">6:5</A>) where sin has lost its power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,7);">6:7</A>), a world in which we are no longer under Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,14);">6:14</a>). Hence, the intensest moral effort becomes our duty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,13);">6:13</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,14);">2Co 5:14</a>f).<P>4. Atonement:<P>This release from the Law, however, does not solve the whole problem. Evil, present and past, is a fact, Law or no Law (on <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,15);">Ro 4:15b</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,13);">5:13b</A>; see the comms.), and a forbearance of God that simply "passes over" sins is disastrous for man as well as contrary to the righteous nature of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25);">Ro 3:25</a>f). However inadequate the Old Testament sacrifices were felt to have been (and hence, perhaps, Paul\'s avoidance of the Levitical terms except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,2);">Eph 5:2</a>), yet they offered the only help possible for the treatment of this most complex of problems. The guilt of our sins is "covered" by the death of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,3);">1Co 15:3</a>, where this truth is among those which were delivered to converts "first of all"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25);">Ro 3:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,25);">4:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,6);">5:6</a>, etc.). This part of his theology Paul leaves in an incomplete form. He was accustomed, like any other man of his day, whether Jew or Gentile, to think naturally in sacrificial terms, and neither he nor his converts were conscious of any difficulty involved. Nor has theology since his time been able to contribute much toward advancing the solution of the problem. The fatal results of unchecked evil, its involving of the innocent with the guilty, and the value of vicarious suffering, are simple facts of our experience that defy our attempts to reduce them to intellectual formulas. In Paul\'s case it is to be noted that he views the incentive as coming from God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25);">Ro 3:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,8);">5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,32);">8:32</a>, etc.), because of His love toward man, so that a "gift-propitiation" of an angry deity is a theory the precise opposite of the Pauline. Moreover, Christ\'s death is not a mere fact of the past, but through the "mystical union" is incorporated into the life of every believer.<P>Further developments of this doctrine about Christ\'s death find in it the complete destruction of whatever remained of the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,14);">Col 2:14</a>), especially as the barrier between Jew and Gentile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,15);">Eph 2:15</a>f). The extension of the effects of the death to the unseen world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,15);">Col 2:15</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,9);">Ga 4:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,8);">Eph 4:8</a>) was of course natural.<P>5. Moral Example:<P>The death of Christ as producing a subjective moral power in the believer is appealed to frequently (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,3);">Ro 8:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,2,25);">Eph 5:2,25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,5);">Php 2:5</a>, etc.), while the idea is perhaps present to some degree even in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,26);">Ro 3:26</a>. From a different point of view, the Cross as teaching the vanity of worldly things is a favorite subject with Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,\'22-25\');">1Co 1:22-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,4);">2Co 13:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,11);">Ga 5:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,14);">6:14</a>, etc.). These aspects require no explanation.<P>There are, accordingly, in Paul\'s view of the death of Christ at least three distinct lines, the "mystical," the "juristic," and the "ethical." But this distinction is largely only genetic and logical, and the lines tend to blend in all sorts of combinations. Consequently, it is frequently an impossible exegetical problem to determine which is most prominent in any given passage (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,14);">2Co 5:14</a>f).<P>6. Function of the Law:<P>Regarding the Law a further question remained, which had great importance in Paul\'s controversies. If the Law was useless for salvation, why was it given at all? Paul replies that it still had its purpose. To gain righteousness one must desire it and this desire the Law taught (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,12,16);">Ro 7:12,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,18);">2:18</a>), even though it had no power to help toward fulfillment. So the Law gave knowledge of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,20);">Ro 3:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,7);">7:7</a>). But Paul did not hesitate to go beyond this. Familiar in his own experience with the psychological truth that a prohibition may actually stimulate the desire to transgress it, he showed that the Law actually had the purpose of bringing out all the dormant evil within us, that grace might deal with it effectually (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,20);">Ro 5:20</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,8,25);">7:8,25</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,56);">1Co 15:56</a>). Thus the Law became our paidagogos "to bring us unto Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,24);">Ga 3:24</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SCHOOLMASTER">SCHOOLMASTER</a>), and came in "besides" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,20);">Ro 5:20</a>), i.e. as something not a primary part of God\'s plan. Indeed, this could be shown from the Law itself, which proved that faith was the primary method of salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,\'1-\');">Ro 4</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,17);">Ga 3:17</a>) and which actually prophesied its own repeal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,\'21-31\');">Ga 4:21-31</a>). With this conclusion, which must have required much time to work out, Paul\'s reversal of his former Pharisaic position was complete.<P>IV. Special Topics.<P>1. The Church:<P>As Christ is the central element in the life of the believer, all believers have this element in common and are so united with each other (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,5);">Ro 12:5</a>). This is the basis of the Pauline doctrine of the church. The use of the word "church" to denote the whole body of believers is not attained until the later Epistles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,18);">Col 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,6);">Php 3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,22);">Eph 1:22</a>, etc.)<29>before that time the word is in the plural when describing more than a local congregation (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,4);">2Th 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,17);">1Co 7:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,16);">Ro 16:16</a>, etc.)<29>but the idea is present from the first. Indeed, the only terms in Judaism that were at all adequate were "the nation" or "Israel." Paul uses the latter term (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,16);">Ga 6:16</a>) and quite constantly expresses himself in a manner that suggests the Old Testament figures for the nation (e.g. compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,25);">Eph 5:25</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,19);">Ho 2:19</a>f), and time was needed in order to give ekklesia (properly "assembly") the new content.<P>The church is composed of all who have professed faith in Christ and the salvation of its members Paul takes generally for granted (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,4);">1Th 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,7);">Ro 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,8);">1Co 1:8</a>, etc.), even in the case of the incestuous person of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,5);">1Co 5:5</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,15);">3:15</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,32);">11:32</A>). To be sure, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,\'11-13\');">1Co 5:11-13</a> makes it clear that the excommunication of grave sinners had been found necessary, and one may doubt if Paul had much hope for the "false brethren" of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,26);">2Co 11:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,4);">Ga 2:4</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,17);">1Co 3:17</a>, etc.). But on the whole Paul\'s optimism has little doubt that every member of the church is in right relations with God. These members, through their union with Christ, form a corporate, social organism of the greatest possible solidarity (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,26);">1Co 12:26</a>, etc.) and have the maximum of responsibility toward one another (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,15);">Ro 14:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,11);">1Co 8:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,\'13-15\');">2Co 8:13-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,2);">Ga 6:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,25);">Eph 4:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,24);">Col 1:24</a>, etc.). They are utterly distinct from the world around them (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,\'14-18\');">2Co 6:14-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,12);">1Co 5:12</a>, etc.), although in constant intercourse with it (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,10);">1Co 5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,27);">10:27</a>, etc.). It was even desirable, in the conditions of the times, that the church should have her own courts like Jews in Gentile cities (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,5);">1Co 6:5</a>f). The right of the church to discipline her members is taken for granted (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,\'1-\');">1Co 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,\'5-11\');">2Co 2:5-11</a>). According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,23);">Ac 14:23</a> Paul made his own appointments of church officers, but the Epistles as a whole would suggest that this practice did not extend beyond Asia Minor. For further details see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHURCH+GOVERNMENT">CHURCH GOVERNMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MINISTRY">MINISTRY</a>. A general obedience to Paul\'s own authority is presupposed throughout.<P>The church is, of course, the object of Christ\'s sanctifying power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,\'25-30\');">Eph 5:25-30</a>) and is so intimately united with Him as to be spoken of as His "body" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,27);">1Co 12:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,18);">Col 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,23);">Eph 1:23</a>, etc.), or as the "complement" of Christ, the extension of His personality into the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,22);">Eph 1:22</a>f). As such, its members have not only their duty toward one another, but also the responsibility of carrying Christ\'s message into the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,15);">Php 2:15</a>f; and presupposed everywhere). And to God shall "be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations forever and ever" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,21);">Eph 3:21</a>).<P>2. The Sacraments:<P>As the union with Christ\'s death is something more than a subjective impression made on the mind by the fact of that death, the references to the union with the death accomplished in baptism in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'1-7\');">Ro 6:1-7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,11);">Col 2:11</a>f are not explained by supposing them to describe a mere dramatic ceremony. That Paul was really influenced by the mystery-religion concepts has not been made out. But his readers certainly were so influenced and tended to conceive very materialistic views of the Christian sacraments (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,5);">1Co 10:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,29);">15:29</a>). And historic exegesis is bound to construe Paul\'s language in the way in which he knew his readers would be certain to understand it, and no ordinary Gentile reader of Paul\'s day would have seen a purely "symbolic" meaning in either of the baptismal passages. Philo would have done so, but not the class of men with whom Paul had to deal. Similarly, with regard to the Lord\'s Supper, in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,20);">1Co 10:20</a> Paul teaches that through participation in a sacral meal it is possible to be brought into objective relations with demons of whom one is wholly ignorant. In this light it is hard to avoid the conclusion that through participation in the Lord\'s Supper the believer is objectively brought into communion with the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16);">1Co 10:16</a>), a communion that will react for evil on the believer if he approach it in an unworthy manner (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,\'29-32\');">1Co 11:29-32</a>): i.e. the union with Christ that is the center of Paul\'s theology he teaches to be established normally through baptism. And in the Lord\'s Supper this union is further strengthened. That faith on the part of the believer is an indispensable prerequisite for the efficacy of the sacraments need not be said.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOD">GOD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAROUSIA">PAROUSIA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRAYER">PRAYER</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PREDESTINATION">PREDESTINATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROPITIATION">PROPITIATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAUL">PAUL</a>`48';
isbe[6754]='Paulus, Sergius`po\'-lus, sur\'-ji-us (Sergios Paulos): The Roman "proconsul" (Revised Version) or "deputy" (the King James Version) of Cyprus when Paul, along with Barnabas, visited that island on his first missionary journey (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,4,7);">Ac 13:4,7</a>). The official title of Sergius is accurately given in Acts. Cyprus was originally an imperial province, but in 22 BC it was transferred by Augustus to the Senate, and was therefore placed under the administration of proconsuls, as is attested by extant Cyprian coins of the period. When the two missionaries arrived at Paphos, Sergius, who was a "prudent man" (the King James Version) or "man of understanding" (Revised Version), i.e. a man of practical understanding, "sought to hear the word of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,7);">Ac 13:7</a>). Bar-Jesus, or Elymas, a sorcerer at the court of Sergius, fearing the influence of the apostles, sought, however, "to turn aside the proconsul from the faith," but was struck with blindness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,\'8-11\');">Ac 13:8-11</a>); and the deputy, "when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,12);">Ac 13:12</a>). The narrative indicates that not only the miracle but also the attention with which Sergius listened to the teaching of Paul (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,7);">Ac 13:7</a>) conduced to his conversion (Bengel). Attempts have been made to trace some connection between the name Sergius Paulus and the fact that Saul is first called Paul in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,9);">Ac 13:9</a>, but the joint occurrence of the two names is probably to be set down as only a coincidence.``88';
isbe[6755]='Pavement`pav\'-ment: In the Old Testament, with the exception of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,17);">2Ki 16:17</a>, the Hebrew word is ritspah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',7,3);">2Ch 7:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,6);">Es 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,17);">Eze 40:17</a>, etc.); in Sirach 20:18 and Bel and the Dragon verse 19 the word is edaphos; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,13);">Joh 19:13</a>, the name "The Pavement" (lithostrotos, "paved with stone") is given to the place outside the Praetorium on which Pilate sat to give judgment upon Jesus. Its Hebrew (Aramaic) equivalent is declared to be <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GABBATHA">GABBATHA</a> (which see). The identification of the place is uncertain.``1';
isbe[6756]='Pavilion`pa-vil\'-yun: A covered place, booth, tent, in which a person may be kept hid or secret (cokh, <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,5);">Ps 27:5</a>; cukkah<61>the usual term<72><a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,20);">Ps 31:20</a>), or otherwise be withdrawn from view. The term is used with reference to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,12);">2Sa 22:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,11);">Ps 18:11</a>); to kings drinking in privacy (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,12,16);">1Ki 20:12,16</a>); the Revised Version (British and American) gives "pavilion" for the King James Version "tabernacle" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,29);">Job 36:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,6);">Isa 4:6</a>; while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,8);">Nu 25:8</a> it substitutes this word, with the margin "alcove," for the King James Version "tent" (qubbah), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,10);">Jer 43:10</a>, for "royal pavilion" (shaphrur), reads in the margin "glittering pavilion."``132';
isbe[6757]='Paw`po (kaph, literally, "palm," yadh, literally, "hand"): The former (kaph) is applied to the soft paws of animals in contradistinction to the hoofs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,27);">Le 11:27</a>); the latter is thrice used in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,37);">1Sa 17:37</a>: "Yahweh that delivered me out of the paw (yadh) of the lion, and out of the paw (yadh) of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand (yadh) of this Philistine." The verb "to paw" (chaphar) is found in the description of the horse: "He paweth (margin "they paw") in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strength: he goeth out to meet the armed men (margin, "the weapons")" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,21);">Job 39:21</a>). The word is usually translated "to delve into," "to pry into," "to explore."``106';
isbe[6758]='Pe`pa "p": The 17th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "p" with daghesh and "ph" (equalsf) without. It came also to be used for the number 80.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALPHABET">ALPHABET</a>`1';
isbe[6759]='Peace`pes (shalom; eirene):<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>Is a condition of freedom from disturbance, whether outwardly, as of a nation from war or enemies, or inwardly, within the soul. The Hebrew word is shalom (both adjective and substantive), meaning, primarily, "soundness," "health," but coming also to signify "prosperity," well-being in general, all good in relation to both man and God. In early times, to a people harassed by foes, peace was the primary blessing. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',122,7);">Ps 122:7</a>, we have "peace" and "prosperity," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,27);">35:27</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,3);">73:3</A>, shalom is translated "prosperity." In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,7);">2Sa 11:7</a> the King James Version, David asked of Uriah "how Joab did" (margin "of the peace of Joab"), "and how the people did (the Revised Version (British and American) "fared," literally, "of the peace of the people"), and how the war prospered" (literally, "and of the peace (welfare) of the war").<P>(1) Shalom was the common friendly greeting, used in asking after the health of anyone; also in farewells (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,6);">Ge 29:6</a>, "Is it well with him?" ("Is there peace to him?"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,23);">43:23</a>, "Peace be to you"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,27);">43:27</A>, "He asked them of their welfare (of their peace)"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,23);">Jud 6:23</a>, "Yahweh said unto him, Peace be unto thee"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,15);">18:15</A> (the King James Version "saluted him," margin "Hebrew asked him of peace," the Revised Version (British and American) "of his welfare"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,20);">Jud 19:20</a>, etc.). See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GREETING">GREETING</a>.<P>(2) Peace from enemies (implying prosperity) was the great desire of the nation and was the gift of God to the people if they walked in His ways (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,6);">Le 26:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,26);">Nu 6:26</a>, "Yahweh lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',29,11);">Ps 29:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,12);">Isa 26:12</a>, etc.). To "die in peace" was greatly to be desired (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,15);">Ge 15:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,6);">1Ki 2:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,28);">2Ch 34:28</a>, etc.).<P>(3) Inward peace was the portion of the righteous who trusted in God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',22,21);">Job 22:21</a>, "Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace (shalam)"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',4,8);">Ps 4:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',85,8);">85:8</a>, "He will speak peace unto his people, and to his saints"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,165);">119:165</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,2,17);">Pr 3:2,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,3);">Isa 26:3</a>, "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace (Hebrew "peace, peace"), whose mind is stayed on thee; because he trusteth in thee"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',2,5);">Mal 2:5</a>); also outward peace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,23,24);">Job 5:23,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,7);">Pr 16:7</a>, etc.).<P>(4) Peace was to be sought and followed by the righteous (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,14);">Ps 34:14</a>, "Seek peace, and pursue it"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,16,19);">Zec 8:16,19</a>, "Love truth and peace").<P>(5) Peace should be a prominent feature of the Messianic times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,4);">Isa 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,6);">9:6</a>, "Prince of Peace"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,6);">Isa 11:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,25);">Eze 34:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,\'2-4\');">Mic 4:2-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,10);">Zec 9:10</a>).<P>In the New Testament, where eirene has much the same meaning and usage as shalom (for which it is employed in the Septuagint; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,42);">Lu 19:42</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "If thou hadst known...the things which belong unto peace"), we have still the expectation of "peace" through the coming of the Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,74,79);">Lu 1:74,79</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,51);">12:51</a>) and also its fulfillment in the higher spiritual sense.<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>(1) The gospel in Christ is a message of peace from God to men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,14);">Lu 2:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,36);">Ac 10:36</a>, "preaching...peace by Jesus Christ"). It is "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,1);">Ro 5:1</a>; the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,15);">10:15</A>; peace between Jew and Gentile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,14,15);">Eph 2:14,15</a>); an essential element in the spiritual kingdom of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,17);">Ro 14:17</a>).<P>(2) It is to be cherished and followed by Christians. Jesus exhorted His disciples, "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with another" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,50);">Mr 9:50</a>); Paul exhorts, "Live in peace: and the God of love and peace shall be with you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,11);">2Co 13:11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,18);">Ro 12:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,15);">1Co 7:15</a>).<P>(3) God is therefore "the God of peace," the Author and Giver of all good ("peace" including every blessing) very frequently (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,33);">Ro 15:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,20);">16:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,16);">2Th 3:16</a>, etc., "the Lord of peace"). "Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" is a common apostolic wish or salutation (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,3);">1Co 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,2);">2Co 1:2</a>, etc.).<P>(4) We have also "peace" as a greeting (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,13);">Mt 10:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,5);">Lu 10:5</a>); "a son of peace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,6);">Lu 10:6</a>) is one worthy of it, in sympathy with it; the Lord\'s own greeting to His disciples was "Peace be unto you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,36);">Lu 24:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,19,21,26);">Joh 20:19,21,26</a>), and ere He left them He gave them specially His blessing of "Peace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,27);">Joh 14:27</a>); we have also frequently "Go in peace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,34);">Mr 5:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,50);">Lu 7:50</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,38);">Lu 19:38</a>, we have "peace in heaven" (in the acclamation of Jesus on His Messianic entry of Jerusalem).<P>(5) The peace that Christ brought is primarily spiritual peace from and with God, peace in the heart, peace as the disposition or spirit. He said that He did not come "to send peace on the earth, but a sword," referring to the searching nature of His call and the divisions and clearances it would create. But, of course, the spirit of the gospel and of the Christian is one of peace, and it is a Christian duty to seek to bring war and strife everywhere to an end. This is represented as the ultimate result of the gospel and Spirit of Christ; universal and permanent peace can come only as that Spirit rules in men\'s hearts.<P>"Peace" in the sense of silence, to hold one\'s peace, etc., is in the Old Testament generally the translation of charash, "to be still, or silent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,21);">Ge 24:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,5);">34:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,3);">Job 11:3</a>); also of chashah, "to hush," "to be silent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,3,5);">2Ki 2:3,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',39,2);">Ps 39:2</a>), and of other words. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',29,10);">Job 29:10</a> ("The nobles held their peace," the King James Version), it is qol, "voice."<P>In the New Testament we have siopao, "to be silent," "to cease speaking" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,31);">Mt 20:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,63);">26:63</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,9);">Ac 18:9</a>, etc.); sigao, "to be silent," "not to speak" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,26);">Lu 20:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,17);">Ac 12:17</a>); hesuchazo, "to be quiet" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,4);">Lu 14:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,18);">Ac 11:18</a>); phimoo, "to muzzle or gag" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,25);">Mr 1:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,35);">Lu 4:35</a>).<P>In Apocrypha eirene is frequent, mostly in the sense of peace from war or strife (Tobit 13:14; Judith 3:1; Ecclesiasticus 13:18; 1Macc 5:54; 6:49; 2Macc 14:6, eustatheia equals "tranquillity").<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has "peace" for "tongue" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',7,4);">Es 7:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,24);">Job 6:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',6,10);">Am 6:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,13);">Hab 1:13</a>); "at peace with me" for "perfect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,19);">Isa 42:19</a>, margin "made perfect" or "recompensed"); "security" instead of "peaceably" and "peace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,25);">Da 8:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,21,24);">11:21,24</a>); "came in peace to the city," for "came to Shalem, a city" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,18);">Ge 33:18</a>); "it was for my peace" instead of "for peace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,17);">Isa 38:17</a>); "when they are in peace," for "and that which should have been for their welfare" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',69,22);">Ps 69:22</a>).``185';
isbe[6760]='Peace offering``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SACRIFICE">SACRIFICE</a>`1';
isbe[6761]='Peacemaker`pes\'-mak-er: Occurs only in the plural (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,9);">Mt 5:9</a>, "Blessed are the peacemakers (eirenopoioi): for they shall be called sons of God" (who is "the God of peace")). We have also what seems to be a reflection of this saying in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,18);">Jas 3:18</a>, "The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for (the Revised Version margin "by") them that make peace" (tois poiousin eirenen). In classical Greek a "peacemaker" was an ambassador sent to treat of peace. The word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,9);">Mt 5:9</a> would, perhaps, be better rendered "peace-workers," implying not merely making peace between those who are at variance, but working peace as that which is the will of the God of peace for men.``185';
isbe[6762]='Peacock`pe\'-kok (tukkiyim (plural); Latin Pavo cristatus): A bird of the genus Pavo. Japan is the native home of the plainer peafowl; Siam, Ceylon and India produce the commonest and most gorgeous. The peacock has a bill of moderate size with an arched tip, its cheeks are bare, the eyes not large, but very luminous, a crest of 24 feathers 2 inches long, with naked shafts and broad tips of blue, glancing to green. The neck is not long but proudly arched, the breast full, prominent and of bright blue green, blue predominant. The wings are short and ineffectual, the feathers on them made up of a surprising array of colors. The tail consists of 18 short, stiff, grayish-brown feathers. Next is the lining of the train, of the same color. The glory of this glorious bird lies in its train. It begins on the back between the wings in tiny feathers not over 6 inches in length, and extends backward. The quills have thick shafts of purple and green shades, the eye at the tip of each feather from one-half to 2 inches across, of a deep peculiar blue, surrounded at the lower part by two half-moon-shaped crescents of green. Whether the train lies naturally, or is spread in full glory, each eye shows encircled by a marvel of glancing shades of green, gold, purple, blue and bronze. When this train is spread, it opens like a fan behind the head with its sparkling crest, and above the wondrous blue of the breast. The bird has the power to contract the muscles at the base of the quills and play a peculiar sort of music with them. It loves high places and cries before a storm in notes that are startling to one not familiar with them. The bird can be domesticated and will become friendly enough to take food from the hand. The peahen is smaller than the cock, her neck green, her wings gray, tan and brown<77>but she has not the gorgeous train. She nests on earth and breeds with difficulty when imported, the young being delicate and tender. The grown birds are hardy when acclimated, and live to old age. By some freak of nature, pure white peacocks are at times produced. Aristophanes mentioned peafowl in his Birds, II. 102, 269. Alexander claimed that he brought them into Greece from the east, but failed to prove his contention. Pliny wrote that Hortensius was the first to serve the birds for food, and that Aufidius Lurco first fattened and sold them in the markets. It was the custom to skin the bird, roast and recover it and send it to the table, the gaudy feathers showing.<P>The first appearance of the bird in the Bible occurs in a summing-up of the wealth and majesty of Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,22);">1Ki 10:22</a> "For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram: once every three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks"). (Here the Septuagint translates peleketoi (s.c. lithoi), equals "(stones) carved with an ax.") The same statement is made in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,21);">2Ch 9:21</a>: "For the king had ships that went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram; once every three years came the ships of Tarshish, bringing gold and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks" Septuagint omits). There is no question among scholars and scientists but that these statements are true, as the ships of Solomon are known to have visited the coasts of India and Ceylon, and Tarshish was on the Malabar coast of India, where the native name of the peacock was tokei, from which tukkiyim undoubtedly was derived (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOLD">GOLD</a>, and The Expository Times, IX, 472). The historian Tennant says that the Hebrew names for "ivory" and "apes" were also the same as the Tamil. The reference to the small, ineffectual wing of the peacock which scarcely will lift the weight of the body and train, that used to be found in Job, is now applied to the ostrich, and is no doubt correct:<P class="in15">"The wings of the ostrich wave proudly;<br>But are they the pinions and plumage of love?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,13);">Job 39:13</a>).<P>While the peacock wing seems out of proportion to the size of the bird, it will sustain flight and bear the body to the treetops. The wing of the ostrich is useless for flight.``167';
isbe[6763]='Pearl`purl.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STONES,+PRECIOUS">STONES, PRECIOUS</a>`1';
isbe[6764]='Peculiar`pe-kul\'-yar: The Latin peculium means "private property," so that "peculiar" properly equals "pertaining to the individual." In modern English the word has usually degenerated into a half-colloquial form for "extraordinary," but in Biblical English it is a thoroughly dignified term for "esp. one\'s own"; compare the "peculiar treasure" of the king in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',2,8);">Ec 2:8</a> (the King James Version). Hence, "peculiar people" (the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,2);">De 14:2</a>, etc.) means a people especially possessed by God and particularly prized by Him. The word in the Old Testament (the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,5);">Ex 19:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,2);">De 14:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',26,18);">26:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',135,4);">Ps 135:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',2,8);">Ec 2:8</a>) invariably represents ceghullah, "property," an obscure word which Septuagint usually rendered by the equally obscure periousios (apparently meaning "superabundant"), which in turn is quoted in <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,14);">Tit 2:14</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,17);">Mal 3:17</a>, however, Septuagint has peripoiesis, quoted in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,9);">1Pe 2:9</a>. the English Revised Version in the New Testament substituted "own possession" in the two occurrences, but in the Old Testament kept "peculiar" and even extended its use (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,6);">De 7:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,17);">Mal 3:17</a>) to cover every occurrence of ceghullah except in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,3);">1Ch 29:3</a> ("treasure"). the American Standard Revised Version, on the contrary, has dropped "peculiar" altogether, using "treasure" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,3);">1Ch 29:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',2,8);">Ec 2:8</a>, and "own possession" elsewhere. the King James Version also has "peculiar commandments" (idios, "particular," the Revised Version (British and American) "several") in The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 19:6</span>, and the Revised Version (British and American) has "peculiar" where the King James Version has "special" in The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 3:14</span> for eklekte, "chosen out."``48';
isbe[6765]='Pedahel`ped\'-a-hel, pe-da\'-el (pedhah\'-el, "whom God redeems"): A prince of Naphtali; one of the tribal chiefs who apportioned the land of Canaan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,28);">Nu 34:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,17);">Nu 34:17</a>).``1';
isbe[6766]='Pedahzur`pe-da\'zur (pedhahtsur): Mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,10);">Nu 1:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,20);">2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,54,59);">7:54,59</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,23);">10:23</a> as the father of Gamaliel, head of the tribe of Manasseh, at the time of the exodus. See The Expository Times, VIII, 555ff.``1';
isbe[6767]='Pedaiah`pe-da\'-ya, pe-di\'-a (pedhayahu, "Yah redeems"):<P>(1) Father of Joel, who was ruler of Western Manasseh in David\'s reign (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,20);">1Ch 27:20</a>). Form pedhayah (see above).<P>(2) Pedaiah of Rumah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,36);">2Ki 23:36</a>), father of Zebudah, Jehoiakim\'s mother.<P>(3) A son of Jeconiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,18);">1Ch 3:18</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,19);">1Ch 3:19</a> the father of Zerubbabel. Pedaiah\'s brother, Shealtiel, is also called father of Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,2);">Ezr 3:2</a>; but in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,17);">1Ch 3:17</a> the King James Version spelled "Salathiel"). There may have been two cousins, or even different individuals may be referred to under Shealtiel and Salathiel respectively.<P>(4) Another who helped to repair the city wall (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,25);">Ne 3:25</a>), of the family of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAROSH">PAROSH</a> (which see). Perhaps this is the man who stood by Ezra at the reading of the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a>; 1Esdras 9:44, called "Phaldeus").<P>(5) A "Levite," appointed one of the treasurers over the "treasuries" of the Lord\'s house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,13);">Ne 13:13</a>).<P>(6) A Benjamite, one of the rulers residing in Jerusalem under the "return" arrangements (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,7);">Ne 11:7</a>).``186';
isbe[6768]='Pedestal`ped\'-es-tal (ken): In two places (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,29,31);">1Ki 7:29,31</a>) the Revised Version (British and American) gives this word for the King James Version "base" (in Solomon\'s "Sea").``1';
isbe[6769]='Pedias`ped\'-i-as, pe-di\'-as (Pedias; Codex Alexandrinus Paideias; the King James Version by mistake Pelias): One of those who had taken "strange wives" (1Esdras 9:34) equals "Bedeiah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,35);">Ezr 10:35</a>.``1';
isbe[6770]='Pedigree`ped\'-i-gre (hithyalledh, "to show one\'s birth"): The English word "pedigree" occurs only once in the Bible, according to the concordance. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,18);">Nu 1:18</a>, it is said: "They declared their pedigrees"; that is, they enrolled or registered themselves according to their family connections. The same idea is expressed frequently, employing a different term in the Hebrew, by the common phrase of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, "to reckon by genealogy," "to give genealogy," etc. (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,5,9);">1Ch 7:5,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,62);">Ezr 2:62</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,64);">Ne 7:64</a>). These last passages indicate the importance of the registered pedigree or genealogy, especially of the priests in the post-exilic community, for the absence of the list of their pedigrees, or their genealogical records, was sufficient to cause the exclusion from the priesthood of certain enrolled priests.``13';
isbe[6771]='Peel; Pill`pel, pil: "Pill" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,37,38);">Ge 30:37,38</a>; Tobit 11:13 (the Revised Version (British and American) "scaled")) and "peel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',18,2,7);">Isa 18:2,7</a> (the King James Version and the Revised Version margin); <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,18);">Eze 29:18</a> (the King James Version and the English Revised Version)) are properly two different words, meaning "to remove the hair" (pilus) and "to remove the skin" (pellis), but in Elizabethan English the two were confused. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',18,2,7);">Isa 18:2,7</a>, the former meaning is implied, as the Hebrew word here (marat) is rendered "pluck off the hair" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,3);">Ezr 9:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,25);">Ne 13:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,6);">Isa 50:6</a>. The word, however, may also mean "make smooth" (so the Revised Version margin) or "bronzed." This last, referring to the dark skins of the Ethiopians, is best here, but in any case the King James Version and the Revised Version margin are impossible. In the other cases, however, "remove the skin" (compare "scaled," Tobit 11:13 the Revised Version (British and American)) is meant. So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,37,38);">Ge 30:37,38</a>, Jacob "peels" (so the Revised Version (British and American)) off portions of the bark of his rods, so as to give alternating colors (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,39);">30:39</a>). And in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,18);">Eze 29:18</a>, the point is Nebuchadrezzar\'s total failure in his siege of Tyre, although the soldiers had carried burdens until the skin was peeled from their shoulders (compare the American Standard Revised Version "worn").``48';
isbe[6772]='Peep`pep (tsphaph; the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,19);">Isa 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,14);">10:14</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "chirp")): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,14);">10:14</A>, the word describes the sound made by a nestling bird; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,19);">8:19</A>, the changed (ventriloquistic?) voice of necromancers uttering sounds that purported to come from the feeble dead. The modern use of "peep" equals "look" is found in Sirach 21:23, as the translation of parakupto: "A foolish man peepeth in from the door of another man\'s house."``1';
isbe[6773]='Pekah`pe\'-ka (peqach, "opening" (of the eyes) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,\'25-31\');">2Ki 15:25-31</a>); Phakee):<P>1. Accession:<P>Son of Remaliah, and 18th king of Israel. Pekah murdered his predecessor, Pekahiah, and seized the reins of power (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,25);">2Ki 15:25</a>). His usurpation of the throne is said to have taken place in the 52nd year of Uzziah, and his reign to have lasted for 20 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,27);">2Ki 15:27</a>). His accession, therefore, may be placed in 748 BC (other chronologies place it later, and make the reign last only a few years).<P>Pekah came to the throne with the resolution of assisting in forming a league to resist the westward advance of Assyria. The memory of defeat by Assyria at the battle of Karkar in 753, more than 100 years before, had never died out.<P>2. Attitude of Assyria:<P>Tiglath-pileser III was now ruler of Assyria, and in successive campaigns since 745 had proved himself a resistless conqueror. His lust for battle was not yet satisfied, and the turn of Philistia and Syria was about to come. In 735, a coalition, of which Pekah was a prominent member, was being formed to check his further advance. It comprised the princes of Comagene, Gebal, Hamath, Arvad, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Gaza, Samaria, Syria, and some minor potentates, the list being taken from a roll of the subject-princes who attended a court and paid tribute after the fall of Damascus. Ahaz likewise attended as a voluntary tributary to do homage to Tiglath-pileser (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,10);">2Ki 16:10</a>).<P>3. Judah Recalcitrant:<P>While the plans of the allies were in course of formation, an obstacle was met with which proved insurmountable by the arts of diplomacy. This was the refusal of Ahaz, then on the throne of David, to join the confederacy. Arguments and threats having failed to move him, resort was had to force, and the troops of Samaria and Damascus moved on Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,5);">2Ki 16:5</a>). Great alarm was felt at the news of their approach, as seen in the 7th and 8th chapters of Isaiah. The allies had in view to dispossess Ahaz of his crown, and give it to one of their own number, a son of Tabeel. Isaiah himself was the mainstay of the opposition to their projects. The policy he advocated, by divine direction, was that of complete neutrality. This he urged with passionate earnestness, but with only partial success. Isaiah (probably) had kept back Ahaz from joining the coalition, but could not prevent him from sending an embassy, laden with gifts to Tiglath-pileser, to secure his intervention. On the news arriving that the Assyrian was on the march, a hasty retreat was made from Jerusalem, and the blow soon thereafter fell, where Isaiah had predicted, on Rezin and Pekah, and their kingdoms.<P>4. Chronicles Ancillary to Kings:<P>The severely concise manner in which the writer of Kings deals with the later sovereigns of the Northern Kingdom is, in the case of Pekah, supplemented in Chronicles by further facts as to this campaign of the allies. The Chronicler states that "a great multitude of captives" were taken to Damascus and many others to Samaria. These would be countrymen and women from the outlying districts of Judah, which were ravaged. Those taken to Samaria were, however, returned, unhurt, to Jericho by the advice of the prophet Oded (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,\'5-15\');">2Ch 28:5-15</a>).<P>5. Fall of Damascus; Northern and Eastern Palestine Overrun:<P>The messengers sent from Jerusalem to Nineveh appear to have arrived when the army of Tiglath-pileser was already prepared to march. The movements of the Assyrians being expedited, they fell upon Damascus before the junction of the allies was accomplished. Rezin was defeated in a decisive battle, and took refuge in his capital, which was closely invested. Another part of the invading army descended on the upper districts of Syria and Samaria. Serious resistance to the veteran troops of the East could hardly be made, and city after city fell. A list of districts and cities that were overrun is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,29);">2Ki 15:29</a>. It comprises Gilead beyond Jordan<61>already partly depopulated (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,26);">1Ch 5:26</a>); the tribal division of Naphtali, lying to the west of the lakes of Galilee and Merom, and all Galilee, as far south as the plain of Esdraelon and the Valley of Jezreel. Cities particularly mentioned are Ijon (now \'Ayun), Abel-beth-maacah (now \'Abi), Janoah (now Yanun), Kedesh (now Kados) and Hazor (now Hadireh).<P>6. Deportation of the Inhabitants:<P>These places and territories were not merely attacked and plundered. Their inhabitants were removed, with indescribable loss and suffering, to certain districts in Assyria, given as Halah, Habor, Hara, and both sides of the river Gozan, an affluent of the Euphrates. The transplantation of these tribes to a home beyond the great river was a new experiment in political geography, devised with the object of welding the whole of Western Asia into a single empire. It was work of immense difficulty and must have taxed the resources of even so great an organizer as Tiglath-pileser. The soldiers who had conquered in the field were, of course, employed to escort the many thousands of prisoners to their new locations. About two-thirds of the Samarian kingdom, comprising the districts of Samaria, the two Galilees, and the trans-Jordanic region, was thus denuded of its inhabitants.<P>7. Death of Pekah:<P>Left with but a third of his kingdom<6F>humbled but still defiant<6E>Pekah was necessarily unpopular with his subjects. In this extremity<74>the wave of invasion from the north having spent itself<6C>the usual solution occurred, and a plot was formed by which the assassination of Pekah should be secured, and the assassin should take his place as a satrap of Assyria. A tool was found in the person of Hoshea, whom Tiglath-pileser claims to have appointed to the throne. The Biblical narrative does not do more than record the fact that "Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,30);">2Ki 15:30</a>). The date given to this act is the 20th year of Jotham. As Jotham\'s reign lasted but 16 years, this number is evidently an error.<P>8. References in Isaiah:<P>For the first time, the historian makes no reference to the religious conduct of a king of Israel. The subject was beneath notice. The second section of Isaiah\'s prophecies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,\'1-\');">Isa 7:1-10:4</a>) belongs to the reign of Ahaz and thus to the time of Pekah, both of whom are named in it. Pekah is named in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,1);">Isa 7:1</a>, and is often, in this and the next chapter, referred to as "the son of Remaliah." His loss of the territorial divisions of Zebulun and Naphtali is referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,1);">9:1</A>, and is followed by prophecy of their future glory as the earthly home of the Son of Man. The wording of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,14);">Isa 9:14</a> shows that it was written before the fall of Samaria, and that of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,\'9-11\');">Isa 10:9-11</a> that Damascus and Samaria had both fallen and Jerusalem was expected to follow. This section of Isaiah may thus be included in the literature of the time of Pekah.``17';
isbe[6774]='Pekahiah`pek-a-hi\'-a, pe-ka\'-ya (peqachyah, "Yah hath opened" (the eyes) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,\'23-26\');">2Ki 15:23-26</a>); Phakesias; Codex Alexandrinus Phakeias):<P>1. Accession:<P>Son of Menahem, and 17th king of Israel. He is said to have succeeded his father in the "50th year of Azariah" (or Uzziah), a synchronism not free from difficulty if his accession is placed in 750-749 (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MENAHEM">MENAHEM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UZZIAH">UZZIAH</a>). Most date lower, after 738, when an Assyrian inscription makes Menahem pay tribute to Tiglath-pileser (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,\'19-21\');">2Ki 15:19-21</a>).<P>2. Regicide in Israel:<P>Pekahiah came to the throne enveloped in the danger which always accompanies the successor of an exceptionally strong ruler, in a country where there is not a settled law of succession. Within two years of his accession he was murdered in a foul manner<65>the 7th king of Israel who had met his death by violence (the others were Nadab, Elah, Tibni, Jehoram, Zechariah and Shallum). The chief conspirator was Pekah, son of Remaliah, one of his captains, with whom, as agent in the crime, were associated 50 Gileadites. These penetrated into the palace (the Revised Version (British and American) "castle") of the king\'s house, and put Pekahiah to death, his bodyguards, Argob and Arieh, dying with him. The record, in its close adherence to fact, gives no reason for the king\'s removal, but it may reasonably be surmised that it was connected with a league which was at this time forming for opposing resistance to the power of Assyria. This league, Pekahiah, preferring his father\'s policy of tributary vassalage, may have refused to join. If so, the decision cost him his life. The act of treachery and violence is in accordance with all that Hosea tells us of the internal condition of Israel at this time: "They...devour their judges; all their kings are fallen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',7,7);">Ho 7:7</a>).<P>3. Pekahiah\'s Character:<P>The narrative of Pekahiah\'s short reign contains but a brief notice of his personal character. Like his predecessors, Pekahiah did not depart from the system of worship introduced by Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, "who made Israel to sin." Despite the denunciations of the prophets of the Northern Kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,\'21-27\');">Am 5:21-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',8,\'1-6\');">Ho 8:1-6</a>), the worship of the calves remained, till the whole was swept away, a few years later, by the fall of the kingdom.<P>After Pekahiah\'s murder, the throne was seized by the regicide Pekah.``17';
isbe[6775]='Pekod`pe\'-kod (peqodh): A name applied in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,21);">Jer 50:21</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,23);">Eze 23:23</a> to the Chaldeans. Various English Versions of the Bible (margins) in the former passage gives the meaning as "visitation."``1';
isbe[6776]='Pelaiah`pe-la\'-ya, pe-li\'-a (pela\'yah):<P>(1) A son of Elioenai, of the royal house of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,24);">1Ch 3:24</a>).<P>(2) A Levite who assisted Ezra by expounding the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,7);">Ne 8:7</a>), and was one of those who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,10);">10:10</a>). He is called "Phalias" in 1Esdras 9:48 (Revised Version).``1';
isbe[6777]='Pelaliah`pel-a-li\'-a (pelalyah, "Yahweh judges"): A priest, father of Jeroham, one of the "workers" in the Lord\'s house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,12);">Ne 11:12</a>).``1';
isbe[6778]='Pelatiah`pel-a-ti\'-a (pelatyah, "Yahweh delivers"):<P>(1) One who "sealed" the covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,22);">Ne 10:22</a>).<P>(2) A descendant of Solomon, grandson of Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,21);">1Ch 3:21</a>).<P>(3) A Simeonite, one of the captains who cleared out the Amalekites and dwelt on the captured land (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,42,43);">1Ch 4:42,43</a>).<P>(4) A prince of the people whom Ezekiel (in Babylon) pictures as \'devising mischief\' and giving \'wicked counsel\' in Jerusalem. He is represented as falling dead while Ezekiel prophesies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',11,1,13);">Eze 11:1,13</a>). His name has the "-u," ending.``1';
isbe[6779]='Peleg`pe\'-leg (pelegh, "watercourse," "division"): A son of Eber, and brother of Joktan. The derivation of the name is given: "for in his days was the earth divided" (niphleghah) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,25);">Ge 10:25</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,35);">Lu 3:35</a>, the King James Version "Phalec"). This probably refers to the scattering of the world\'s population and the confounding of its language recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-9\');">Ge 11:1-9</a>. In Aramaic pelagh and Arabic phalaj mean "division"; in Hebrew pelegh means "watercourse." The name may really be due to the occupation by this people of some well-watered (furrowed), district (e.g. in Babylonia), for these patronymics represent races, and the derivation in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,25);">Ge 10:25</a> is a later editor\'s remark.``78';
isbe[6780]='Pelet`pe\'-let (peleT, "deliverance"):<P>(1) Son of Iahdai (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,47);">1Ch 2:47</a>).<P>(2) Son of Azmaveth, one of those who resorted to David at Ziklag while he was hiding from Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,3);">1Ch 12:3</a>).``1';
isbe[6781]='Peleth`pe\'-leth (peleth, "swiftness"):<P>(1) Father of On, one of the rebels against Moses and Aaron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,1);">Nu 16:1</a>); probably same as <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PALLU">PALLU</a> (which see).<P>(2) A descendant of Jerahmeel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,33);">1Ch 2:33</a>).``1';
isbe[6782]='Pelethites`pel\'-e-thits, pe\'-leth-its (pelethi): A company of David\'s bodyguard, like the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHERETHITES">CHERETHITES</a> (which see) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,18);">2Sa 8:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,18);">15:18</a>); probably a corrupt form of "Philistines."``1';
isbe[6783]='Pelias`pe-li\'-as: the King James Version equals the Revised Version (British and American) "Pedias."``1';
isbe[6784]='Pelican`pel\'-kan (qa\'ath; Latin Pelecanus onocrotalus Septuagint reads pelekan, in Leviticus and Psalms, but has 3 other readings, that are rather confusing, in the other places)): Any bird of the genus Pelecanus. The Hebrew qi\' means "to vomit." The name was applied to the bird because it swallowed large quantities of fish and then disgorged them to its nestlings. In the performance of this act it pressed the large beak, in the white species, tipped with red, against the crop and slightly lifted the wings. In ancient times, people, seeing this, believed that the bird was puncturing its breast and feeding its young with its blood. From this idea arose the custom of using a pelican with lifted wings in heraldry or as a symbol of Christ and of charity. (See Fictitious Creatures in Art, 182-86, London, Chapman and Hall, 1906.) Palestine knew a white and a brownish-gray bird, both close to 6 ft. long and having over a 12 ft. sweep of wing. They lived around the Dead Sea, fished beside the Jordan and abounded in greatest numbers in the wildernesses of the Mediterranean shore. The brown pelicans were larger than the white. Each of them had a long beak, peculiar throat pouch and webbed feet. They built large nests, 5 and 6 ft. across, from dead twigs of bushes, and laid two or three eggs. The brown birds deposited a creamy-white egg with a rosy flush; the white, a white egg with bluish tints. The young were naked at first, then covered with down, and remained in the nest until full feathered and able to fly. This compelled the parent birds to feed them for a long time, and they carried such quantities of fish to a nest that the young could not consume all of them and many were dropped on the ground. The tropical sun soon made the location unbearable to mortals. Perching pelicans were the ugliest birds imaginable, but when their immense brown or white bodies swept in a 12 ft. spread across the land and over sea, they made an impressive picture. They are included, with good reason, in the list of abominations (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,18);">Le 11:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,17);">De 14:17</a>). They are next mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',102,6);">Ps 102:6</a>:<P class="in15">"I am like a pelican of the wilderness;<br>I am become as an owl of the waste places."<P>Here David from the depths of affliction likened himself to a pelican as it appears when it perches in the wilderness. See <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,11);">Isa 34:11</a>: "But the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it; and the owl and the raven shall dwell therein: and he will stretch over it the line of confusion, and the plummet of emptiness." Here the bird is used to complete the picture of desolation that was to prevail after the destruction of Edom. The other reference concerns the destruction of Nineveh and is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,14);">Ze 2:14</a>: "And herds shall lie down in the midst of her, all the beasts of the nations: both the pelican and the porcupine shall lodge in the capitals thereof; their voice shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the thresholds: for he hath laid bare the cedar-work."``167';
isbe[6785]='Pelishtim`pel\'-ish-tim, pe-lish\'-tim (pelishtim (the Revised Version margin of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,14);">Ge 10:14</a>)).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHILISTINES">PHILISTINES</a>`1';
isbe[6786]='Pelonite`pel\'-o-nit, pe\'-lo-nit, pe-lo\'-nit (peloni, a place-name): Two of David\'s heroes are thus described: (1) "Helez the Pelonite" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,27);">1Ch 11:27</a>) (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PALTITE">PALTITE</a>); and (2) "Ahijah the Pelonite" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,36);">1Ch 11:36</a>).``1';
isbe[6787]='Pen`(\'et, cheret; kalamos): The first writing was done on clay, wax, lead or stone tablets by scratching into the material with some hard pointed instrument. For this purpose bodkins of bronze, iron, bone or ivory were used (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,24);">Job 19:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,1);">Isa 8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,1);">Jer 17:1</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,1);">Jer 17:1</a> a diamond is also mentioned as being used for the same purpose. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,\'1-\');">Jer 36</a> Baruch, the son of Neriah, declares that he recorded the words of the prophet with ink in the book. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,23);">Jer 36:23</a> it says that the king cut the roll with the penknife (literally, the scribe\'s knife). This whole scene can best be explained if we consider that Baruch and the king\'s scribes were in the habit of using reed pens. These pens are made from the hollow jointed stalks of a coarse grass growing in marshy places. The dried reed is cut diagonally with the penknife and the point thus formed is carefully shaved thin to make it flexible and the nib split as in the modern pen. The last operation is the clipping off of the very point so that it becomes a stub pen. The Arab scribe does this by resting the nib on his thumb nail while cutting, so that the cut will be clean and the pen will not scratch. The whole procedure requires considerable skill. The pupil in Hebrew or Arabic writing learns to make a pen as his first lesson. A scribe carries a sharp knife around with him for keeping his pen in good condition, hence, the name penknife. The word used in <a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,13);">3Joh 1:13</a> is kalamos, "reed," indicating that the pen described above was used in John\'s time (compare qalam, the common Arabic name for pen).<P>Figurative: "Written with a pen of iron," i.e. indelibly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,1);">Jer 17:1</a>). "My tongue is the pen of a ready writer" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,1);">Ps 45:1</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,18);">Jer 36:18</a>). As the trained writer records a speech, so the Psalmist\'s tongue impresses or engraves on his hearers\' minds what he has conceived.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INK">INK</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INK-HORN">INK-HORN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WRITING">WRITING</a>`133';
isbe[6788]='Pence; Penny`pens.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MONEY">MONEY</a>`1';
isbe[6789]='Pencil`pen\'-sil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,13);">Isa 44:13</a>, margin "red ochre," the King James Version "line").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LINE">LINE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OCHRE,+RED">OCHRE, RED</a>`1';
isbe[6790]='Pendant`pen\'-dant (from French from Latin pendeo, "to hang"): Not in the King James Version. Twice in the Revised Version (British and American).<P>(1) netiphoth (the King James Version "collars"), ornaments of the Midianites captured by Gideon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,26);">Jud 8:26</a>).<P>(2) netiphoth (the King James Version "chains"), an article of feminine apparel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,19);">Isa 3:19</a>). The reference seems to be (Cheyne, "Isaiah" Polychrome Bible (HDB, III, 739)) to ear-drops, pearl or gold ornaments resembling a drop of Water, fastened, probably, to the lobe of the ear.``1';
isbe[6791]='Peniel`pe-ni\'-el, pen\'-i-el, pe\'-ni-el (peni\'el, "face of God"; Eidos theou): This is the form of the name in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,30);">Ge 32:30</a>. In the next verse and elsewhere it appears as "Penuel." The name is said to have been given to the place by Jacob after his night of wrestling by the Jabbok, because, as he said, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." It was a height evidently close by the stream over which Jacob passed in the morning. Some have thought it might be a prominent cliff, the contour of which resembled a human face. Such a cliff on the seashore to the south of Tripoli was called theou prosopon, "face of God" (Strabo xvi.2,15f). In later times a city with a strong tower stood upon it. This lay in the line of Gideon\'s pursuit of the Midianites. When he returned victorious, he beat down the place because of the churlishness of the inhabitants (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,8,9,17);">Jud 8:8,9,17</a>). It was one of the towns "built" or fortified by Jeroboam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,25);">1Ki 12:25</a>). Merrill would identify it with Telul edh-Dhahab, "hills of gold," two hills with ruins that betoken great antiquity, and that speak of great strength, on the south of the Jabbok, about 10 miles east of Jordan (for description see Merrill, East of the Jordan, 390 if). A difficulty that seems fatal to this identification is that here the banks of the Jabbok are so precipitous as to be impassable. Conder suggests Jebel \'Osha. The site was clearly not far from Succoth; but no certainty is yet possible.``54';
isbe[6792]='Peninnah`pe-nin\'-a (peninnah, "coral," "pearl"): Second wife of Elkanah, father of Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,2,4);">1Sa 1:2,4</a>).``1';
isbe[6793]='Penknife`pen\'-nif (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,23);">Jer 36:23</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PEN">PEN</a>`1';
isbe[6794]='Penny`pen\'-i (denarion; Latin <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DENARIUS">denarius</a> (which see)): the American Standard Revised Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,28);">Mt 18:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,2,9,10,13);">20:2,9,10,13</a>, etc.) renders it by "shilling" except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,19);">Mt 22:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,15);">Mr 12:15</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,24);">Lu 20:24</a>, where it retains the original term as it refers to a particular coin.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DENARIUS">DENARIUS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MONEY">MONEY</a>`1';
isbe[6795]='Pension`pen\'-shun (1Esdras 4:56, the King James Version "and he commanded to give to all that kept the city pensions and wages"; kleros, "allotted portion," usually (here certainly) of lands (the Revised Version (British and American) "lands")): Literally it means simply "payment," and the King James Version seems to have used the word in order to avoid any specialization of kleros. There is no reference to payment for past services.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOT">LOT</a>`1';
isbe[6796]='Pentateuch, 1`pen\'-ta-tuk:<P><b>I. TITLE, DIVISION, CONTENTS</b><P><b>II. AUTHORSHIP, COMPOSITION, DATE</b><P class="in15">1. The Current Critical Scheme <P class="in15">2. The Evidence for the Current Critical Scheme<P class="in30">(1) Astruc\'s Clue<P class="in30">(2) Signs of Post-Mosaic Date<P class="in30">(3) Narrative Discrepancies<P class="in30">(4) Doublets<P class="in30">(5) The Laws<P class="in30">(6) The Argument from Style<P class="in30">(7) Props of the Development Hypothesis<P class="in15">3. The Answer to the Critical Analysis<P class="in30">(1) The Veto of Textual Criticism<P class="in30">(2) Astruc\'s Clue Tested<P class="in30">(3) The Narrative Discrepancies and Signs of Post-Mosaic Date Examined<P class="in30">(4) The Argument from the Doublets Examined<P class="in30">(5) The Critical Argument from the Laws<P class="in30">(6) The Argument from Style<P class="in30">(7) Perplexities of the Theory<P class="in30">(8) Signs of Unity<P class="in30">(9) The Supposed Props of the Development Hypothesis<P class="in15">4. The Evidence of Date<P class="in30">(1) The Narrative of Genesis<P class="in30">(2) Archaeology and Genesis<P class="in30">(3) The Legal Evidence of Genesis<P class="in30">(4) The Professedly Mosaic Character of the Legislation<P class="in30">(5) The Historical Situation Required by Pentateuch<P class="in30">(6) The Hierarchical Organization in Pentateuch<P class="in30">(7) The Legal Evidence of Pentateuch<P class="in30">(8) The Evidence of D<P class="in30">(9) Later Allusions<P class="in30">(10) Other Evidence<P class="in15">5. The Fundamental Improbabilities of the Critical Case<P class="in30">(1) The Moral and Psychological Issues<P class="in30">(2) The Historical Improbability<P class="in30">(3) The Divergence between the Laws and Post-exilic Practice<P class="in30">(4) The Testimony of Tradition<P class="in15">6. The Origin and Transmission of the Pentateuch<P><b>III. SOME LITERARY POINTS</b><P class="in15">1. Style of Legislation<P class="in15">2. The Narrative<P class="in15">3. The Covenant<P class="in15">4. Order and Rhythm<P><b>IV. THE PENTATEUCH AS HISTORY</b><P class="in15">1. Textual Criticism and History<P class="in15">2. Hebrew Methods of Expression<P class="in15">3. Personification and Genealogies<P class="in15">4. Literary Form<P class="in15">5. The Sacred Numbers<P class="in15">6. Habits of Thought<P class="in15">7. National Coloring<P class="in15">8. How Far the Pentateuch Is Trustworthy<P class="in30">(1) Contemporaneous Information<P class="in30">(2) Character of Our Informants<P class="in30">(3) Historical Genius of the People<P class="in30">(4) Good Faith of Deuteronomy<P class="in30">(5) Nature of the Events Recorded<P class="in30">(6) External Corroborations<P class="in15">9. The Pentateuch as Reasoned History<P><b>V. THE CHARACTER OF THE PENTATEUCH</b><P class="in15">1. Hindu Law Books<P class="in15">2. Differences<P class="in15">3. Holiness<P class="in15">4. The Universal Aspect<P class="in15">5. The National Aspect<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Title, Division, Contents<P>(Torah, "law" or "teaching").<2E>It has recently been argued that the Hebrew word is really the Babylonian tertu, "divinely revealed law" (e.g. Sayce, Churchman,1909,728ff), but such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'54-57\');">Le 14:54-57</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,11);">De 17:11</a> show that the legislator connected it with horah (from yarah), "to teach." Also called by the Jews chamishshah chumeshi torah, "the five-fifths of the law": ho nomos, "the Law." The word "Pentateuch" comes from pentateuchos, literally "5-volumed (book)." The Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the Bible, and forms the first division of the Jewish Canon, and the whole of the Samaritan Canon. The 5-fold division is certainly old, since it is earlier than the Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch. How much older it may be is unknown. It has been thought that the 5-fold division of the Psalter is based on it.<P>The five books into which the Pentateuch is divided are respectively Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and the separate articles should be consulted for information as to their nomenclature.<P>The work opens with an account of the Creation, and passes to the story of the first human couple. The narrative is carried on partly by genealogies and partly by fuller accounts to Abraham. Then comes a history of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the collateral lines of descendants being rapidly dismissed. The story of Joseph is told in detail, and Genesis closes with his death. The rest of the Pentateuch covers the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, their exodus and wanderings, the conquest of the trans-Jordanic lands and the fortunes of the people to the death of Moses. The four concluding books contain masses of legislation mingled with the narrative (for special contents, see articles on the several books).``193';
isbe[6797]='Pentateuch, 2A`II. Authorship, Composition, Date.<P>1. The Current Critical Scheme:<P>The view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, with the exception of the concluding verses of Deuteronomy, was once held universally. It is still believed by the great mass of Jews and Christians, but in most universities of Northern Europe and North America other theories prevail. An application of what is called "higher" or "documentary criticism" (to distinguish it from lower or textual criticism) has led to the formation of a number of hypotheses. Some of these are very widely held, but unanimity has not been attained, and recent investigations have challenged even the conclusions that are most generally accepted. In the English-speaking countries the vast majority of the critics would regard Driver\'s, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament and Carpenter and Harford-Battersby\'s Hexateuch as fairly representative of their position, but on the Continent of Europe the numerous school that holds some such position is dwindling alike in numbers and influence, while even in Great Britain and America some of the ablest critics are beginning to show signs of being shaken in their allegiance to cardinal points of the higher-critical case. However, at the time of writing, these latter critics have not put forward any fresh formulation of their views, and accordingly the general positions of the works named may be taken as representing with certain qualifications the general critical theory. Some of the chief stadia in the development of this may be mentioned.<P>After attention had been drawn by earlier writers to various signs of post-Mosaic date and extraordinary perplexities in the Pentateuch, the first real step toward what its advocates have, till within the last few years, called "the modern position" was taken by J. Astruc (1753). He propounded what Carpenter terms "the clue to the documents," i.e. the difference of the divine appellations in Genesis as a test of authorship. On this view the word \'Elohim ("God") is characteristic of one principal source and the Tetragrammaton, i.e. the divine name YHWH represented by the "LORD" or "GOD" of the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), shows the presence of another. Despite occasional warnings, this clue was followed in the main for 150 years. It forms the starting-point of the whole current critical development, but the most recent investigations have successfully proved that it is unreliable (see below,3,(2)) Astruc was followed by Eichhorn (1780), who made a more thorough examination of Genesis, indicating numerous differences of style, representation, etc.<P>Geddes (1792) and Vater (1802-1805) extended the method applied to Genesis to the other books of the Pentateuch.<P>In 1798 Ilgen distinguished two Elohists in Genesis, but this view did not find followers for some time. The next step of fundamental importance was the assignment of the bulk of Deuteronomy to the 7th century BC. This was due to De Wette (1806). Hupfeld (1853) again distinguished a second Elohist, and this has been accepted by most critics. Thus, there are four main documents at least: D (the bulk of Deuteronomy), two Elohists (P and E) and one document (Jahwist) that uses the Tetragrammaton in Genesis. From 1822 (Bleek) a series of writers maintained that the Book of Joshua was compounded from the same documents as the Pentateuch (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEXATEUCH">HEXATEUCH</a>).<P>Two other developments call for notice:<P>(1) there has been a tendency to subdivide these documents further, regarding them as the work of schools rather than of individuals, and resolving them into different strata (P1, Secondary Priestly Writers, P3, etc., J1, Later additions to J, etc., or in the notation of other writers Jj Je, etc.);<P>(2) a particular scheme of dating has found wide acceptance. In the first period of the critical development it was assumed that the principal Elohist (P) was the earliest document.<P>A succession of writers of whom Reuss, Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen are the most prominent have, however, maintained that this is not the first but the last in point of time and should be referred to the exile or later. On this view theory is in outline as follows: J and E (so called from their respective divine appellations)<29>on the relative dates of which opinions differ<65>were composed probably during the early monarchy and subsequently combined by a redactor (Rje) into a single document JE. In the 7th century D, the bulk of Deuteronomy, was composed. It was published in the 18th year of Josiah\'s reign. Later it was combined with JE into JED by a redactor (Rjed). P or Priestly Code the last of all (originally the first Elohist, now the Priestly Code) incorporated an earlier code of uncertain date which consists in the main of most of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17:1-26:46</a> and is known as the Law of Holiness (H or Ph). P itself is largely postexilic. Ultimately it was joined with JED by a priestly redactor (Rp) into substantially our present Pentateuch. As already stated, theory is subject to many minor variations. Moreover, it is admitted that not all its portions are equally well supported. The division of JE into J and E is regarded as less certain than the separation of Pentateuch. Again, there are variations in the analysis, differences of opinion as to the exact dating of the documents, and so forth. Yet the view just sketched has been held by a very numerous and influential school during recent years, nor is it altogether fair to lay stress on minor divergences of opinion. It is in the abstract conceivable that the main positions might be true, and that yet the data were inadequate to enable all the minor details to be determined with certainty.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRITICISM+OF+THE+BIBLE">CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE</a>.<P>This theory will hereafter be discussed at length for two reasons:<P>(1) while it is now constantly losing ground, it is still more widely held than any other; and<P>(2) so much of the modern literature on the Old Testament has been written from this standpoint that no intelligent use can be made of the most ordinary books of reference without some acquaintance with it.<P>Before 1908 the conservative opposition to the dominant theory had exhibited two separate tendencies. One school of conservatives rejected the scheme in toto; the other accepted the analysis with certain modifications, but sought to throw back the dating of the documents. In both these respects it had points of contact with dissentient critics (e.g. Delitzsch, Dillmann, Baudissin, Kittel, Strack, Van Hoonacker), who sought to save for conservatism any spars they could from the general wreckage. The former school of thought was most prominently represented by the late W.H. Green, and J.<P>Raven\'s Old Testament Introduction may be regarded as a typical modern presentation of their view; the latter especially by Robertson and Orr. The scheme put forward by the last named has found many adherents. He refuses to regard J and E as two separate documents, holding that we should rather think (as in the case of the parallel Psalms) of two recensions of one document marked by the use of different divine appellations. The critical P he treats as the work of a supplemented, and thinks it never had an independent existence, while he considers the whole Pentateuch as early. He holds that the work was done by "original composers, working with a common aim, and toward a common end, in contrast with the idea of late irresponsible redactors, combining, altering, manipulating, enlarging at pleasure" (POT, 375).<P>While these were the views held among Old Testament critics, a separate opposition had been growing up among archaeologists. This was of course utilized to the utmost by the conservatives of both wings. In some ways archaeology undoubtedly has confirmed the traditional view as against the critical (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARCHAEOLOGY+AND+CRITICISM">ARCHAEOLOGY AND CRITICISM</a>); but a candid survey leads to the belief that it has not yet dealt a mortal blow, and here again it must be remembered that the critics may justly plead that they must not be judged on mistakes that they made in their earlier investigations or on refutations of the more uncertain portions of their theory, but rather on the main completed result. It may indeed be said with confidence that there are certain topics to which archaeology can never supply any conclusive answer. If it be the case that the Pentateuch contains hopelessly contradictory laws, no archaeological discovery can make them anything else; if the numbers of the Israelites are original and impossible, archaeology cannot make them possible. It is fair and right to lay stress on the instances in which archaeology has confirmed the Bible as against the critics; it is neither fair nor right to speak as if archaeology had done what it never purported to do and never could effect.<P>The year 1908 saw the beginning of a new critical development which makes it very difficult to speak positively of modern critical views. Kuenen has been mentioned as one of the ablest and most eminent of those who brought the Graf-Wellhausen theory into prominence. In that year B.D. Eerdmans, his pupil and successor at Leyden, began the publication of a series of Old Testament studies in which he renounces his allegiance to the line of critics that had extended from Astruc to the publications of our own day, and entered on a series of investigations that were intended to set forth a new critical view. As his labors are not yet complete, it is impossible to present any account of his scheme; but the volumes already published justify certain remarks. Eerdmans has perhaps not converted any member of the Wellhausen school, but he has made many realize that their own scheme is not the only one possible. Thus while a few years ago we were constantly assured that the "main results" of Old Testament criticism were unalterably settled, recent writers adopt a very different tone: e.g. Sellin (1910) says, "We stand in a time of fermentation and transition, and in what follows we present our own opinion merely as the hypothesis which appears to us to be the best founded" (Einleitung, 18). By general consent Eerdmans\' work contains a number of isolated shrewd remarks to which criticism will have to attend in the future; but it also contains many observations that are demonstrably unsound (for examples see BS, 1909, 744-48; 1910, 549-51). His own reconstruction is in many respects so faulty and blurred that it does not seem likely that it will ever secure a large following in its present form. On the other hand he appears to have succeeded in inducing a large number of students in various parts of the world to think along new lines and in this way may exercise a very potent influence on the future course of Old Testament study. His arguments show increasingly numerous signs of his having been influenced by the publications of conservative writers, and it seems certain that criticism will ultimately be driven to recognize the essential soundness of the conservative position. In 1912 Dahse (TMH, I) began the publication of a series of volumes attacking the Wellhausen school on textual grounds and propounding a new pericope hypothesis. In his view many phenomena are due to the influence of the pericopes of the synagogue service or the form of the text and not to the causes generally assigned.<P>2. The Evidence for the Current Critical Scheme:<P>The examination of the Graf-Wellhausen theory must now be undertaken, and attention must first be directed to the evidence which is adduced in its support. Why should it be held that the Pentateuch is composed mainly of excerpts from certain documents designated as J and E and P and D? Why is it believed that these documents are of very late date, in one case subsequent to the exile?<P>(1) Astruc\'s Clue.<P>It has been said above that Astruc propounded the use of the divine appellations in Genesis as a clue to the dissection of that book. This is based on <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,3);">Ex 6:3</a>, \'And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as \'El Shadday (God Almighty); but by my name YHWH I was not known to them.\' In numerous passages of Genesis this name is represented as known, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,26);">4:26</A>, where we read of men beginning to call on it in the days of Enosh. The discrepancy here is very obvious, and in the view of the Astruc school can be satisfactorily removed by postulating different sources. This clue, of course, fails after <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,3);">Ex 6:3</a>, but other difficulties are found, and moreover the sources already distinguished in Genesis are, it is claimed, marked by separate styles and other characteristics which enable them to be identified when they occur in the narrative of the later books.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRITICISM+OF+THE+BIBLE">CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE</a>.<P>(2) Signs of Post-Mosaic Date.<P>Close inspection of the Pentateuch shows that it contains a number of passages which, it is alleged, could not have proceeded from the pen of Moses in their present form. Probably the most familiar instance is the account of the death of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',34,\'1-\');">De 34</a>). Other examples are to be found in seeming allusions to post-Mosaic events, e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-\');">Ge 22</a> we hear of the Mount of the Lord in the land of Moriah; this apparently refers to the Temple Hill, which, however, would not have been so designated before Solomon. So too the list of kings who reigned over Edom "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,31);">36:31</A>) presumes the existence of the monarchy. The Canaanites who are referred to as being "then in the land" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,6);">Ge 12:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,7);">13:7</a>) did not disappear till the time of Solomon, and, accordingly, if this expression means "then still" it cannot antedate his reign. <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,11);">De 3:11</a> (Og\'s bedstead) comes unnaturally from one who had vanquished Og but a few weeks previously, while <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,14);">Nu 21:14</a> (the King James Version) contains a reference to "the book of the Wars of the Lord" which would hardly have been quoted in this way by a contemporary. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,35);">Ex 16:35</a> refers to the cessation of the manna after the death of Moses. These passages, and more like them, are cited to disprove Mosaic authorship; but the main weight of the critical argument does not rest on them.<P>(3) Narrative Discrepancies.<P>While the divine appellations form the starting-point, they do not even in Genesis constitute the sole test of different documents. On the contrary, there are other narrative discrepancies, antinomies, differences of style, duplicate narratives, etc., adduced to support the critical theory. We must now glance at some of these.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,14);">Ge 21:14</a>f Ishmael is a boy who can be carried on his mother\'s shoulder, but from a comparison of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,3,16);">16:3,16</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,\'1-\');">17</A>, it appears that he must have been 14 when Isaac was born, and, since weaning sometimes occurs at the age of 3 in the East, may have been even as old as 17 when this incident happened. Again, "We all remember the scene (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,\'1-\');">Ge 27</a>) in which Isaac in extreme old age blesses his sons; we picture him as lying on his deathbed. Do we, however, all realize that according to the chronology of the Book of Genesis he must have been thus lying on his deathbed for eighty years (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,26);">25:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,34);">26:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,28);">35:28</A>)? Yet we can only diminish this period by extending proportionately the interval between Esau marrying his Hittite wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,34);">26:34</a>) and Rebekah\'s suggestion to Isaac to send Jacob away, lest he should follow his brother\'s example (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,46);">27:46</a>); which, from the nature of the case, will not admit of any but slight extension. Keil, however, does so extend it, reducing the period of Isaac\'s final illness by 43 years, and is conscious of no incongruity in supposing that Rebekah, 30 years after Esau had taken his Hittite wives, should express her fear that Jacob, then aged 77, will do the same" (Driver, Contemporary Review, LVII, 221).<P>An important instance occurs in Numbers. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,38);">33:38</A>, Aaron died on the 1st day of the 5th month. From <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,3);">De 1:3</a> it appears that 6 months later Moses delivered his speech in the plains of Moab. Into those 6 months are compressed one month\'s mourning for Aaron, the Arad campaign, the wandering round by the Red Sea, the campaigns against Sihon and Og, the missions to Balaam and the whole episode of his prophecies, the painful occurrences of <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,\'1-\');">Nu 25</a>, the second census, the appointment of Joshua, the expedition against Midian, besides other events. It is clearly impossible to fit all these into the time.<P>Other discrepancies are of the most formidable character. Aaron dies now at Mt. Hor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,28);">Nu 20:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,38);">33:38</a>), now at Moserah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,6);">De 10:6</a>). According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,\'1-\');">De 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,1,14);">2:1,14</a>, the children of Israel left Kadesh-barnea in the 3rd year and never subsequently returned to it, while in Numbers they apparently remain there till the journey to Mt. Hor, where Aaron dies in the 40th year. The Tent of Meeting perhaps provides some of the most perplexing of the discrepancies, for while according to the well-known scheme of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25</a>ff and many other passages, it was a large and heavy erection standing in the midst of the camp, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'7-11\');">Ex 33:7-11</a> provides us with another Tent of Meeting that stood outside the camp at a distance and could be carried by Moses alone. The verbs used are frequentative, denoting a regular practice, and it is impossible to suppose that after receiving the commands for the Tent of Meeting Moses could have instituted a quite different tent of the same name. Joseph again is sold, now by Ishmaelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,27,28);">Ge 37:27,28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,1);">39:1</a>), anon by Midianites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,28,36);">31:28a, 36</A>). Sometimes he is imprisoned in one place, sometimes apparently in another. The story of Korah, Dathan and Abiram in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,\'1-\');">Nu 16</a> is equally full of difficulty. The enormous numbers of the Israelites given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'1-\');">Nu 1-4</a>, etc., are in conflict with passages that regard them as very few.<P>(4) Doublets.<P>Another portion of the critical argument is provided by doublets or duplicate narratives of the same event, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-\');">Ge 16</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'1-\');">21</A>. These are particularly numerous in Genesis, but are not confined to that book. "Twice do quails appear in connection with the daily manna (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,\'4-6\',31);">Nu 11:4-6,31</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,13);">Ex 16:13</a>) Twice does Moses draw water from the rock, when the strife of Israel begets the name Meribah (\'strife\')(<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,\'1-7\');">Ex 17:1-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,\'1-13\');">Nu 20:1-13</a>)" (Carpenter, Hexateuch, I, 30).<P>(5) The Laws.<P>Most stress is laid on the argument from the laws and their supposed historical setting. By far the most important portions of this are examined in <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SANCTUARY">SANCTUARY</a> and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRIESTS+AND+LEVITES">PRIESTS AND LEVITES</a>. These subjects form the two main pillars of the Graf-Wellhausen theory, and accordingly the articles in question must be read as supplementing the present article. An illustration may be taken from the slavery laws. It is claimed that <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-6\');">Ex 21:1-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,12);">De 15:12</a>ff permit a Hebrew to contract for life slavery after 6 years\' service, but that <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'39-42\');">Le 25:39-42</a> takes no notice of this law and enacts the totally different provision that Hebrews may remain in slavery only till the Year of Jubilee. While these different enactments might proceed from the same hand if properly coordinated, it is contended that this is not the case and that the legislator in Leviticus ignores the legislator in Exodus and is in turn ignored by the legislator in Deuteronomy, who only knows the law of Exodus.<P>(6) The Argument from Style.<P>The argument from style is less easy to exemplify shortly, since it depends so largely on an immense mass of details. It is said that each of the sources has certain characteristic phrases which either occur nowhere else or only with very much less frequency. For instance in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a>, where \'Elohim is used throughout, we find the word "create," but this is not employed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,4);">2:4b</A>ff, where the Tetragrammaton occurs. Hence, it is argued that this word is peculiarly characteristic of P as contrasted with the other documents, and may be used to prove his presence in e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,1);">5:1</a>f.<P>(7) Props of the Development Hypothesis.<P>While the main supports of the Graf-Wellhausen theory must be sought in the articles to which reference has been made, it is necessary to mention briefly some other phenomena to which some weight is attached. Jeremiah displays many close resemblances to Deuteronomy, and the framework of Kings is written in a style that has marked similarities to the same book. Ezekiel again has notable points of contact with P and especially with H; either he was acquainted with these portions of the Pentateuch or else he must have exercised considerable influence on those who composed them. Lastly the Chronicler is obviously acquainted with the completed Pentateuch. Accordingly, it is claimed that the literature provides a sort of external standard that confirms the historical stages which the different Pentateuchal sources are said to mark. Deuteronomy influences Jeremiah and the subsequent literature. It is argued that it would equally have influenced the earlier books, had it then existed. So too the completed Pentateuch should have influenced Kings as it did Chronicles, if it had been in existence when the earlier history was composed.``193';
isbe[6798]='Pentateuch, 2B`3. Answer to the Critical Analysis:<P>(1) The Veto of Textual Criticism.<P>The first great objection that may be made to the higher criticism is that it starts from the Massoretic text (MT) without investigation. This is not the only text that has come down to us, and in some instances it can be shown that alternative readings that have been preserved are superior to those of the Massoretic Text. A convincing example occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'1-\');">Ex 18</a>. According to the Hebrew, Jethro comes to Moses and says "I, thy father-in-law...am come," and subsequently Moses goes out to meet his father-in-law. The critics here postulate different sources, but some of the best authorities have preserved a reading which (allowing for ancient differences of orthography) supposes an alteration of a single letter. According to this reading the text told how one (or they) came to Moses and said "Behold thy father-in-law...is come." As the result of this Moses went out and met Jethro. The vast improvement in the sense is self-evident. But in weighing the change other considerations must be borne in mind. Since this is the reading of some of the most ancient authorities, only two views are possible. Either the Massoretic Text has undergone a corruption of a single letter, or else a redactor made a most improbable cento of two documents which gave a narrative of the most doubtful sense. Fortunately this was followed by textual corruption of so happy a character as to remove the difficulty by the change of a single letter; and this corruption was so widespread that it was accepted as the genuine text by some of our best authorities. There can be little doubt which of these two cases is the more credible, and with the recognition of the textual solution the particular bit of the analysis that depends on this corruption falls to the ground. This instance illustrates one branch of textual criticism; there are others. Sometimes the narrative shows with certainty that in the transmission of the text transpositions have taken place; e.g. the identification of Kadesh shows that it was south of Hormah. Consequently, a march to compass Edom by way of the Red Sea would not bring the Israelites to Hormah. Here there is no reason to doubt that the events narrated are historically true, but there is grave reason to doubt that they happened in the present order of the narrative. Further, Deuteronomy gives an account that is parallel to certain passages of Numbers; and it confirms those passages, but places the events in a different order. Such difficulties may often be solved by simple transpositions, and when transpositions in the text of Numbers are made under the guidance of Deuteronomy they have a very different probability from guesses that enjoy no such sanction. Another department of textual criticism deals with the removal of glosses, i.e. notes that have crept into the text. Here the ancient versions often help us, one or other omitting some words which may be proved from other sources to be a later addition. Thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,7);">Ex 17:7</a> the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) did not know the expression, "and Meribah" (one word in Hebrew), and calls the place "Massah" simply. This is confirmed by the fact that Deuteronomy habitually calls the place Massah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,16);">6:16</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',9,22);">9:22</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,8);">33:8</A>). The true Meribah was Kadesh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,\'1-\');">Nu 20</a>) and a glossator has here added this by mistake (see further (4) below). Thus we can say that a scientific textual criticism often opposes a real veto to the higher critical analysis by showing that the arguments rest on late corruptions and by explaining the true origin of the difficulties on which the critics rely.<P>(2) Astruc\'s Clue Tested.<P>Astruc\'s clue must next be examined. The critical case breaks down with extraordinary frequency. No clean division can be effected, i.e. there are cases where the Massoretic Text of Genesis makes P or E use the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) or J Yahweh (Yahweh). In some of these cases the critics can suggest no reason; in others they are compelled to assume that the Massoretic Text is corrupt for no better reason than that it is in conflict with their theory. Again the exigencies of the theory frequently force the analyst to sunder verses or phrases that cannot be understood apart from their present contexts, e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,21);">Ge 28:21</a> Carpenter assigns the words "and Yahweh will be my God" to J while giving the beginning and end of the verse to E; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,3);">Genesis 31, verse 3</a> goes to a redactor, though E actually refers to the statement of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,3);">31:3</A> in verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,5);">5</A>; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,30);">Genesis 32, verse 30</a> is torn from a J-context and given to E, thus leaving <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,31);">32:31</A> (Jahwist) unintelligible. When textual criticism is applied, startling facts that entirely shatter the higher critical argument are suddenly revealed. The variants to the divine appellations in Genesis are very numerous, and in some instances the new readings are clearly superior to the Massoretic Text, even when they substitute \'Elohim for the Tetragrammaton. Thus, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,11);">16:11</A>, the explanation of the name Ishmael requires the word \'Elohim, as the name would otherwise have been Ishmayah, and one Hebrew MS, a recension of the Septuagint and the Old Latin do in fact preserve the reading \'Elohim. The full facts and arguments cannot be given here, but Professor Schlogl has made an exhaustive examination of the various texts from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,1);">Ge 1:1</a> to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,12);">Ex 3:12</a>. Out of a total of 347 occurrences of one or both words in the Massoretic Text of that passage, there are variants in 196 instances. A very important and detailed discussion, too long to be summarized here will now be found in TMH, I. Wellhausen himself has admitted that the textual evidence constitutes a sore point of the documentary theory (Expository Times, XX, 563). Again in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,3);">Ex 6:3</a>, many of the best authorities read "I was not made known" instead of "I was not known" a difference of a single letter in Hebrew. But if this be right, there is comparative evidence to suggest that to the early mind a revelation of his name by a deity meant a great deal more than a mere knowledge of the name, and involved rather a pledge of his power. Lastly the analysis may be tested in yet another way by inquiring whether it fits in with the other data, and when it is discovered (see below 4, (1)) that it involves ascribing, e.g. a passage that cannot be later than the time of Abraham to the period of the kingdom, it becomes certain that the clue and the method are alike misleading (see further EPC, chapter i; Expository Times, XX, 378f; 473-75, 563; TMH, I; PS, 49-142; BS, 1913, 145-74; A. Troelstra, The Name of God, NKZ, XXIV (1913), 119-48; The Expositor, 1913).<P>(3) The Narrative Discrepancies and Signs of Post-Mosaic Date Examined.<P>Septuagintal manuscripts are providing very illuminating material for dealing with the chronological difficulties. It is well known that the Septuagint became corrupt and passed through various recensions (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEPTUAGINT">SEPTUAGINT</a>). The original text has not yet been reconstructed, but as the result of the great variety of recensions it happens that our various manuscripts present a wealth of alternative readings. Some of these show an intrinsic superiority to the corresponding readings of the Massoretic Text. Take the case of Ishmael\'s age. We have seen (above,2,(3)) that although in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,14);">Ge 21:14</a>f he is a boy who can be carried by his mother even after the weaning of Isaac, his father, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,3,16);">16:3,16</A>, was 86 years old at the time of his birth, and, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">Genesis 17</a>, 100 years old when Isaac was born. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,25);">17:25</A> we find that Ishmael is already 13 a year before Isaac\'s birth. Now we are familiar with marginal notes that set forth a system of chronology in many printed English Bibles. In this case the Septuagintal variants suggest that something similar is responsible for the difficulty of our Hebrew. Two manuscripts, apparently representing a recension, omit the words, "after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,3);">16:3</A>, and again, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,16);">16:16</A>, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,25);">17:25</A> there is a variant making Ishmael only 3 years old. If these readings are correct it is easy to see how the difficulty arose. The narrative originally contained mere round numbers, like 100 years old, and these were not intended to be taken literally. A commentator constructed a scheme of chronology which was embodied in marginal notes. Then these crept into the text and such numbers as were in conflict with them were thought to be corrupt and underwent alteration. Thus the 3-year-old Ishmael became 13.<P>The same manuscripts that present us with the variants in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-\');">Ge 16</a> have also preserved a suggestive reading in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,28);">35:28</A>, one of the passages that are responsible for the inference that according to the text of Genesis Isaac lay on his deathbed for 80 years (see above,2,(3)). According to this Isaac was not 180, but 150 years old when he died. It is easy to see that this is a round number, not to be taken literally, but this is not the only source of the difficulty. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,41);">27:41</A>, Esau, according to English Versions of the Bible, states "The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob." This is a perfectly possible rendering of the Hebrew, but the Septuagint translated the text differently, and its rendering, while grammatically correct, has the double advantage of avoiding Isaac\'s long lingering on a deathbed and of presenting Esau\'s hatred and ferocity far more vividly. It renders, "May the days of mourning for my father approach that I may slay my brother Jacob." Subsequent translators preferred the milder version, but doubtless the Septuagint has truly apprehended the real sense of the narrative. If we read the chapter with this modification, we see Isaac as an old man, not knowing when he may die, performing the equivalent of making his will. It puts no strain on our credulity to suppose that he may have lived 20 or 30 years longer. Such episodes occur constantly in everyday experience. As to the calculations based on <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,26);">Ge 25:26</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,34);">26:34</A>, the numbers used are 60 and 40, which, as is well known, were frequently employed by the ancient Hebrews, not as mathematical expressions, but simply to denote unknown or unspecified periods.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBER">NUMBER</a>.<P>The other chronological difficulty cited above (namely, that there is not room between the date of Aaron\'s death and the address by Moses in the plains of Moab for all the events assigned to this period by Numbers) is met partly by a reading preserved by the Peshitta and partly by a series of transpositions. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,38);">Nu 33:38</a> Peshitta reads "first" for "fifth" as the month of Aaron\'s death, thus recognizing a longer period for the subsequent events. The transpositions, however, which are largely due to the evidence of Deuteronomy, solve the most formidable and varied difficulties; e.g. a southerly march from Kadesh no longer conducts the Israelites to Arad in the north, the name Hormah is no longer used (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,45);">Nu 14:45</a>) before it is explained (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,3);">Nu 21:3</a>), there is no longer an account directly contradicting Deuteronomy and making the Israelites spend 38 years at Kadesh immediately after receiving a divine command to turn "tomorrow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,25);">Nu 14:25</a>). A full discussion is impossible here and will be found in EPC, 114-38. The order of the narrative that emerges as probably original is as follows: <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,\'1-\');">Nu 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,1,\'14-21\');">20:1,14-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,\'1-3\');">21:1-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,\'1-\');">13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,\'1-\');">14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,\'1-\');">16-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,\'2-13\',22);">20:2-13,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,\'4-9\');">21:4b-9</a>, then some missing vs, bringing the Israelites to the head of the Gulf of Akabah and narrating the turn northward from Elath and Ezion-geber, then <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,\'22-29\');">20:22b-29</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,4);">21:4a</A>, and some lost words telling of the arrival at the station before Oboth. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,40);">Nu 33:40</a> is a gloss that is missing in Lagarde\'s Septuagint, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,36,37);">33:36b-37a</A> should probably come earlier in the chapter than they do at present.<P>Another example of transposition is afforded by <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'7-11\');">Ex 33:7-11</a>, the passage relating to the Tent of Meeting which is at present out of place (see above 2, (3)). It is supposed that this is E\'s idea of the Tabernacle, but that, unlike the Priestly Code (P), he places it outside the camp and makes Joshua its priest. This latter view is discussed and refuted in <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRIESTS+AND+LEVITES">PRIESTS AND LEVITES, sec. 3</a>, where it is shown that <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,7);">Ex 33:7</a> should be rendered "And Moses used to take a (or, the) tent and pitch it for himself," etc. As to theory that this is E\'s account of the Tabernacle, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'1-\');">Ex 18</a> has been overlooked. This chapter belongs to the same E but refers to the end of the period spent at Horeb, i.e. it is later than <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'7-11\');">33:7-11</A>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'13-16\');">18:13-16</A> we find Moses sitting with all the people standing about him because they came to require of God; i.e. the business which according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'1-\');">Ex 33</a> was transacted in solitude outside the camp was performed within the camp in the midst of the people at a later period. This agrees with the Priestly Code (P), e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',27,\'1-\');">Nu 27</a>. If now we look at the other available clues, it appears that <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,11);">Ex 33:11</a> seems to introduce Joshua for the first time. The passage should therefore precede <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,\'8-15\');">17:8-15</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,13);">24:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,17);">32:17</A>, where he is already known. Again, if <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'1-\');">Ex 18</a> refers to the closing scenes at Horeb (as it clearly does), <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,14);">Ex 24:14</a> providing for the temporary transaction of judicial business reads very strangely. It ought to be preceded by some statement of the ordinary course in normal times when Moses was not absent from the camp. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,7);">Ex 33:7</a>ff provides such a statement. The only earlier place to which it can be assigned is after <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,22);">13:22</A>, but there it fits the context marvelously, for the statements as to the pillar of cloud in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,9);">33:9</A>f attach naturally to those in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,21);">13:21</A>f. With this change all the difficulties disappear. Immediately after leaving Egypt Moses began the practice of carrying a tent outside the camp and trying cases there. This lasted till the construction of the Tabernacle. "And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,22);">Ex 25:22</a>). After its erection the earlier tent was disused, and the court sat at the door of the Tabernacle in the center of the camp (see, further, EPC, 93-102, 106f) .<P>Some other points must be indicated more briefly. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,\'1-\');">Nu 16</a> important Septuagintal variants remove the main difficulties by substituting "company of Korah" for "dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram" in two verses (see EPC, 143-46). Similarly in the Joseph-story the perplexities have arisen through corruptions of verses which may still be corrected by the versional evidence (PS, 29-48). There is evidence to show that the numbers of the Israelites are probably due to textual corruption (EPC, 155-69). Further, there are numerous passages where careful examination has led critics themselves to hold that particular verses are later notes. In this way they dispose of <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,6);">De 10:6</a>f (Aaron\'s death, etc.), the references to the Israelirish kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,31);">Ge 36:31</a>) and the Canaanites as being "then" in the land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,6);">Ge 12:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,7);">13:7</a>), the bedstead of Og (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,11);">De 3:11</a>) and other passages. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-\');">Ge 22</a>, "the land of Moriah" is unknown to the versions which present the most diverse readings, of which "the land of the Amorite" is perhaps the most probable; while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,14);">22:14</a> the Septuagint, reading the same Hebrew consonants as Massoretic Text, translates "In the Mount the Lord was seen." This probably refers to a view that God manifested Himself especially in the mountains (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,23,28);">1Ki 20:23,28</a>) and has no reference whatever to the Temple Hill. The Massoretic pointing is presumably due to a desire to avoid what seemed to be an anthropomorphism (see further PS, 19-21). Again, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,14);">Nu 21:14</a>, the Septuagint knows nothing of "a book of the Wars of Yahweh" (see Field, Hexapla, at the place). It is difficult to tell what the original reading was, especially as the succeeding words are corrupt in the Hebrew, but it appears that no genitive followed wars" and it is doubtful if there was any reference to a "book of wars."<P>(4) The Argument from the Doublets Examined.<P>The foregoing sections show that the documentary theory often depends on phenomena that were absent from the original Pentateuch. We are now to examine arguments that rest on other foundations. The doublets have been cited, but when we examine the instances more carefully, some curious facts emerge. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-\');">Ge 16</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'1-\');">21</A> are, to all appearance, narratives of different events; so are <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,\'1-7\');">Ex 17:1-7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,\'1-13\');">Nu 20:1-13</a> (the drawing of water from rocks). In the latter case the critics after rejecting this divide the passages into 5 different stories, two going to J, two to E and one to Pentateuch. If the latter also had a Rephidimnarrative (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,14);">Nu 33:14</a> P), there were 6 tales. In any case both J and E tell two stories each. It is impossible to assign any cogency to the argument that the author of the Pentateuch could not have told two such narratives, if not merely the redactor of the Pentateuch but also J and E could do so. The facts as to the manna stories are similar. As to the flights of quails, it is known that these do in fact occur every year, and the Pentateuch places them at almost exactly a year\'s interval (see EPC, 104f; 109f).<P>(5) The Critical Argument from the Laws.<P>The legal arguments are due to a variety of misconceptions, the washing out of the historical background and the state of the text. Reference must be made to the separate articles (especially <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SANCTUARY">SANCTUARY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRIESTS+AND+LEVITES">PRIESTS AND LEVITES</a>). As the slave laws were cited, it may be explained that in ancient Israel as in other communities slavery could arise or slaves be acquired in many ways: e.g. birth, purchase (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,14);">Ge 14:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,12);">17:12</a>, etc.), gift (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,14);">Ge 20:14</a>), capture in war (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,21);">Ge 14:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,29);">34:29</a>), kidnapping (Joseph). The law of Exodus and Deuteronomy applies only to Hebrew slaves acquired by purchase, not to slaves acquired in any other way, and least of all to those who in the eye of the law were not true slaves. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">Le 25</a> has nothing to do with Hebrew slaves. It is concerned merely with free Israelites who become insolvent. "If thy brother be waxed poor with thee, and sell himself" it begins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,39);">25:39</A>). Nobody who was already a slave could wax poor and sell himself. The law then provides that these insolvent freemen were not to be treated as slaves. In fact, they were a class of free bondsmen, i.e. they were full citizens who were compelled to perform certain duties. A similar class of free bondsmen existed in ancient Rome and were called nexi. The Egyptians who sold themselves to Pharaoh and became serfs afford another though less apt parallel In all ancient societies insolvency led to some limitations of freedom, but while in some full slavery ensued, in others a sharp distinction was drawn between the slave and the insolvent freeman (see further SBL, 5-11).<P>(6) The Argument from Style.<P>Just as this argument is too detailed to be set out in a work like the present, so the answer cannot be given with any degree of fullness. It may be said generally that the argument too frequently neglects differences of subject-matter and other sufficient reasons (such as considerations of euphony and slight variations of meaning) which often provide far more natural reasons for the phenomena observed. Again, the versions suggest that the Biblical text has been heavily glossed. Thus in many passages where the frequent recurrence of certain words and phrases is supposed to attest the presence of the Priestly Code (P), versional evidence seems to show that the expressions in question have been introduced by glossators, and when they are removed the narrative remains unaffected in meaning, but terser and more vigorous and greatly improved as a vehicle of expression. To take a simple instance in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,1);">Ge 23:1</a>, "And the life of Sarah was a hundred and seven and twenty years:...the years of the fife of Sarah," the italicized words were missing in the Septuagint. When they are removed the meaning is unaltered, but the form of expression is far superior. They are obviously mere marginal note. Again the critical method is perpetually breaking down. It constantly occurs that redactors have to be called in to remove from a passage attributed to some source expressions that are supposed to be characteristic of another source, and this is habitually done on no other ground than that theory requires it. One instance muse be given. It is claimed that the word "create" is a P-word. It occurs several times in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-4\');">2:4a</a> and 3 times in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,1,2);">Ge 5:1,2</a>, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,7);">6:7</a> it is found in a J-passage, and some critics therefore assign it to a redactor. Yet J undoubtedly uses the word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,30);">Nu 16:30</a> and D in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,32);">De 4:32</a>. On the other hand, P does not use the word exclusively, even in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-4\');">2:4</a>, the word "make" being employed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,7,25,26,31);">1:7,25,26,31</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,2);">2:2</a>, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,3);">2:3</A> both words are combined. Yet all these passages are given unhesitatingly to P.<P>(7) Perplexities of the Theory.<P>The perplexities of the critical hypothesis are very striking, but a detailed discussion is impossible here. Much material will, however, be found in POT and Eerd. A few general statements may be made. The critical analysis repeatedly divides a straightforward narrative into two sets of fragments, neither of which will make sense without the other. A man will go to sleep in one document and wake in another, or a subject will belong to one source and the predicate to another. No intelligible account can be given of the proceedings of the redactors who one moment slavishly preserve their sources and at another cut them about without any necessity, who now rewrite their material and now leave it untouched. Even in the ranks of the Wellhausen critics chapters will be assigned by one writer to the post-exilic period and by another to the earliest sources (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Ge 14</a>, pre-Mosaic in the main according to Sellin (1910), post-exilic according to others), and the advent of Eerdmans and Dahse has greatly increased the perplexity. Clue after clue, both stylistic and material, is put forward, to be abandoned silently at some later stage. Circular arguments are extremely common: it is first alleged that some phenomenon is characteristic of a particular source; then passages are referred to that source for no other reason than the presence of that phenomenon; lastly these passages are cited to prove that the phenomenon in question distinguishes the source. Again theory is compelled to feed on itself; for J, E, the Priestly Code (P), etc., we have schools of J\'s, E\'s, etc., subsisting side by side for centuries, using the same material, employing the same ideas, yet remaining separate in minute stylistic points. This becomes impossible when viewed in the light of the evidences of pre-Mosaic date in parts of Genesis (see below 4, (1) to (3)).<P>(8) Signs of Unity.<P>It is often possible to produce very convincing internal evidence of the unity of what the critics sunder. A strong instance of this is to be found when one considers the characters portrayed. The character of Abraham or Laban, Jacob or Moses is essentially unitary. There is but one Abraham, and this would not be so if we really had a cento of different documents representing the results of the labor of various schools during different centuries. Again, there are sometimes literary marks of unity, e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,\'1-\');">Nu 16</a>, the effect of rising anger is given to the dialogue by the repetition of "Ye take too much upon you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,3,7);">16:3,7</a>), followed by the repetition of "Is it a small thing that" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,9,13);">16:9,13</A>). This must be the work of a single literary artist (see further SBL, 37f).<P>(9) The Supposed Props of the Development Hypothesis.<P>When we turn to the supposed props of the development hypothesis we see that there is nothing conclusive in the critical argument. Jeremiah and the subsequent literature certainly exhibit the influence of Deuteronomy, but a Book of the Law was admittedly found in Josiah\'s reign and had lain unread for at any rate some considerable time. Some of its requirements had been in actual operation, e.g. in Naboth\'s case, while others had become a dead letter. The circumstances of its discovery, the belief in its undoubted Mosaic authenticity and the subsequent course of history led to its greatly influencing contemporary and later writers, but that really proves nothing. Ezekiel again was steeped in priestly ideas, but it is shown in <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRIESTS+AND+LEVITES">PRIESTS AND LEVITES, sec. 5b</a>, how this may be explained. Lastly, Chronicles certainly knows the whole Pentateuch, but as certainly misinterprets it (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRIESTS+AND+LEVITES">PRIESTS AND LEVITES</a>). On the other hand the Pentateuch itself always represents portions of the legislation as being intended to reach the people only through the priestly teaching, and this fully accounts for P\'s lack of influence on the earlier literature. As to the differences of style within the Pentateuch itself, something is said in III, below. Hence, this branch of the critical argument really proves nothing, for the phenomena are susceptible of more than one explanation.<P>4. The Evidence of Date:<P>(1) The Narrative of Genesis.<P>Entirely different lines of argument are provided by the abundant internal evidences of date. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,19);">Ge 10:19</a>, we read the phrase "as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and Admah and Zeboiim" in a definition of boundary. Such language could only have originated when the places named actually existed. One does not define boundaries by reference to towns that are purely mythical or have been overthrown many centuries previously. The consistent tradition is that these towns were destroyed in the lifetime of Abraham, and the passage therefore cannot be later than his age. But the critics assign it to a late stratum of J, i.e. to a period at least 1,000 years too late. This suggests several comments. First, it may reasonably be asked whether much reliance can be placed on a method which after a century and a half of the closest investigation does not permit its exponents to arrive at results that are correct to within 1,000 years. Secondly, it shows clearly that in the composition of the Pentateuch very old materials were incorporated in their original language. Of the historical importance of this fact more will be said in IV; in this connection we must observe that it throws fresh light on expressions that point to the presence, in Genesis of sources composed in Palestine, e.g. "the sea" for "the west" indicates the probability of a Palestinian source, but once it is proved that we have materials as old as the time of Abraham such expressions do not argue post-Mosaic, but rather pre-Mosaic authorship. Thirdly, the passage demolishes theory of schools of J\'s, etc. It cannot seriously be maintained that there was a school of J\'s writing a particular style marked by the most delicate and subjective criteria subsisting continuously for some 10 or 12 centuries from the time of Abraham onward, side by side with other writers with whom its members never exchanged terms of even such common occurrence as "handmaid."<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,19);">Ge 10:19</a> is not the only passage of this kind. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,4);">2:14</A> we read of the Hiddekel (Tigris) as flowing east of Assur, though there is an alternative reading "in front of." If the translation "east" be correct, the passage must antedate the 13th century BC, for Assur, the ancient capital, which was on the west bank of the Tigris, was abandoned at about that date for Kalkhi on the east.<P>(2) Archaeology and Genesis.<P>Closely connected with the foregoing are cases where Genesis has preserved information that is true of a very early time only. Thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,22);">10:22</A> Elam figures as a son of Shem. The historical Elam was, however, an Aryan people. Recently inscriptions have been discovered which show that in very early times Elam really was inhabited by Semites. "The fact," writes Driver, at the place, "is not one which the writer of this verse is likely to have known." This contention falls to the ground when we find that only three verses off we have material that goes back at least as far as the time of Abraham. After all, the presumption is that the writer stated the fact because he knew it, not in spite of his not knowing it; and that knowledge must be due to the same cause as the noteworthy language of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,19);">Ge 10:19</a>, i.e. to early date.<P>This is merely one example of the confirmations of little touches in Genesis that are constantly being provided by archaeology. For the detailed facts see the separate articles, e.g. <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AMRAPHEL">AMRAPHEL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>, and compare IV, below.<P>From the point of view of the critical question we note<P>(a) that such accuracy is a natural mark of authentic early documents, and<P>(b) that in view of the arguments already adduced and of the legal evidence to be considered, the most reasonable explanation is to be found in a theory of contemporary authorship.<P>(3) The Legal Evidence of Genesis.<P>The legal evidence is perhaps more convincing, for here no theory of late authorship can be devised to evade the natural inference. Correct information as to early names, geography, etc., might be the result of researches by an exilic writer in a Babylonian library; but early customs that are confirmed by the universal experience of primitive societies, and that point to a stage of development which had long been passed in the Babylonia even of Abraham\'s day, can be due to but one cause<73>genuine early sources. The narratives of Genesis are certainly not the work of comparative sociologists. Two instances may be cited. The law of homicide shows us two stages that are known to be earlier than the stage attested by <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,12);">Ex 21:12</a>ff. In the story of Cain we have one stage; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,6);">Ge 9:6</a>, which does not yet recognize any distinction between murder and other forms of homicide, we have the other.<P>Our other example shall be the unlimited power of life and death possessed by the head of the family (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,24);">Ge 38:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,37);">42:37</a>, etc.), which has not yet been limited in any way by the jurisdiction of the courts as in Exodus-Deuteronomy. In both cases comparative historical jurisprudence confirms the Bible account against the critical, which would make e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,6);">Ge 9:6</a> post-exilic, while assigning <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">Ex 21</a> to a much earlier period. (On the whole subject see further OP, 135ff.)<P>(4) The Professedly Mosaic Character of the Legislation.<P>Coming now to the four concluding books of the Pentateuch, we must first observe that the legislation everywhere professes to be Mosaic. Perhaps this is not always fully realized. In critical editions of the text the rubrics and an occasional phrase are sometimes assigned to redactors, but the representation of Mosaic date is far too closely interwoven with the matter to be removed by such devices. If e.g. we take such a section as <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,\'1-\');">De 12</a>, we shall find it full of such phrases as "for ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance" etc.; "When ye go over Jordan," "the place which the Lord shall choose" (the King James Version), etc. It is important to bear this in mind throughout the succeeding discussion.<P>(5) The Historical Situation required by Pentateuch.<P>What do we find if we ignore the Mosaic dress and seek to fit P into any other set of conditions, particularly those of the post-exilic period? The general historical situation gives a clear answer. The Israelites are represented as being so closely concentrated that they will always be able to keep the three pilgrimage festivals. One exception only is contemplated, namely, that ritual uncleanness or a journey may prevent an Israelite from keeping the Passover. Note that in that case he is most certainly to keep it one month later (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',9,10);">Nu 9:10</a>f). How could this law have been enacted when the great majority of the people were in Babylonia, Egypt, etc., so that attendance at the temple was impossible for them on any occasion whatever? With this exception the entire Priestly Code always supposes that the whole people are at all times dwelling within easy reach of the religious center. How strongly this view is embedded in the code may be seen especially from <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a>, which provides that all domestic animals to be slaughtered for food must be brought to the door of the Tent of Meeting. Are we to suppose that somebody deliberately intended such legislation to apply when the Jews were scattered all over the civilized world, or even all over Canaan? If so, it means a total prohibition of animal food for all save the inhabitants of the capital.<P>In post-exilic days there was no more pressing danger for the religious leaders to combat than intermarriage, but this code, which is supposed to have been written for the express purpose of bringing about their action, goes out of its way to give a fictitious account of a war and incidentally to legalize some such unions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,18);">Nu 31:18</a>). And this chapter also contains a law of booty. What could be more unsuitable? How and where were the Jews to make conquests and capture booty in the days of Ezra?<P>"Or again, pass to the last chapter of Numbers and consider the historical setting. What is the complaint urged by the deputation that waits upon Moses? It is this: If heiresses \'be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be added to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall belong.\' What a pressing grievance for a legislator to consider and redress when tribes and tribal lots had long since ceased to exist for ever!" (OP, 121f).<P>Perhaps the most informing of all the discrepancies between P and the post-exilic age is one that explains the freedom of the earlier prophets from its literary influence. According to the constant testimony of the Pentateuch, including the Priestly Code (P), portions of the law were to reach the people only through priestly teaching (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,11);">Le 10:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,8);">De 24:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,10);">33:10</a>, etc.). Ezra on the other hand read portions of P to the whole people.<P>(6) The Hierarchical Organization in Pentateuch.<P>Much of what falls under this head is treated in <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRIESTS+AND+LEVITES">PRIESTS AND LEVITES, sec. 2, (a), (b)</a>, and need not be repeated here. The following may be added: "Urim and Thummim were not used after the Exile. In lieu of the simple conditions<6E>a small number of priests and a body of Levites<65>we find a developed hierarchy, priests, Levites, singers, porters, Nethinim, sons of Solomon\'s servants. The code that ex hypothesi was forged to deal with this state of affairs has no acquaintance with them. The musical services of the temple are as much beyond its line of vision as the worship of the synagogue. Even such an organization as that betrayed by the reference in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,36);">1Sa 2:36</a> to the appointment by the high priest to positions carrying pecuniary emoluments is far beyond the primitive simplicity of P" (OP, 122).<P>(7) The Legal Evidence of the Pentateuch.<P>As this subject is technical we can only indicate the line of reasoning. Legal rules may be such as to enable the historical inquirer to say definitely that they belong to an early stage of society. Thus if we find elementary rules relating to the inheritance of a farmer who dies without leaving sons, we know that they cannot be long subsequent to the introduction of individual property in land, unless of course the law has been deliberately altered. It is an everyday occurrence for men to die without leaving sons, and the question What is to happen to their land in such cases must from the nature of the case be raised and settled before very long. When therefore we find such rules in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',27,\'1-\');">Nu 27</a>, etc., we know that they are either very old or else represent a deliberate change in the law. The latter is really out of the question, and we are driven back to their antiquity (see further OP, 124ff). Again in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,\'1-\');">Nu 35</a> we find an elaborate struggle to express a general principle which shall distinguish between two kinds of homicide. The earlier law had regarded all homicide as on the same level (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,\'1-\');">Ge 9</a>). Now, the human mind only reaches general principles through concrete cases, and other ancient legislations (e.g. the Icelandic) bear witness to the primitive character of the rules of Numbers. Thus, an expert like Dareate can say confidently that such rules as these are extremely archaic (see further SBL and OP, passim).<P>(8) The Evidence of Deuteronomist.<P>The following may be quoted: "Laws are never issued to regulate a state of things which has passed away ages before, and can by no possibility be revived. What are we to think, then, of a hypothesis which assigns the code of Deuteronomy to the reign of Josiah, or shortly before it, when its injunctions to exterminate the Canaanites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,16,17,18);">20:16-18</a>) and the Amalekites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,17,18,19);">25:17-19</A>), who had long since disappeared, would be as utterly out of date as a law in New Jersey at the present time offering a bounty for killing wolves and bears, or a royal proclamation in Great Britain ordering the expulsion of the Danes? A law contemplating foreign conquests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,\'10-15\');">20:10-15</A>) would have been absurd when the urgent question was whether Judah could maintain its own existence against the encroachments of Babylon and Egypt. A law discriminating against Ammon and Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,3,4);">23:3,4</A>), in favor of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,7,8);">23:7,8</a>), had its warrant in the Mosaic period, but not in the time of the later kings. Jeremiah discriminates precisely the other way, promising a future restoration to Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,47);">48:47</A>) and Ammon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,6);">49:6</A>), which he denies to Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,17,18);">49:17,18</a>), who is also to Joel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,19);">3:19</a>), Obadiah, and Isaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,\'1-6\');">63:1-6</a>), the representative foe of the people of God...The allusions to Egypt imply familiarity with and recent residence in that land...And how can a code belong to the time of Josiah, which, while it contemplates the possible selection of a king in the future (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,14);">De 17:14</a>), nowhere implies an actual regal government, but vests the supreme central authority in a judge and the priesthood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,\'8-12\');">De 17:8-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,17);">19:17</a>); which lays special stress on the requirements that the king must be a native and not a foreigner (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,15);">De 17:15</a>), when the undisputed line of succession had for ages been fixed in the family of David, and that he must not \'cause the people to return to Egypt.\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,16);">De 17:16</a>), as they seemed ready to do on every grievance in the days of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,4);">Nu 14:4</a>), but which no one ever dreamed of doing after they were fairly established in Canaan?" (Green, Moses and the Prophets, 63f). This too may be supplemented by legal evidence (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',22,26);">De 22:26</a> testifies to the undeveloped intellectual condition of the people). Of JE it is unnecessary to speak, for <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">Ex 21</a>f are now widely regarded as Mosaic in critical circles. Wellhausen (Prolegomena (6), 392, note) now regards their main elements as pre-Mosaic Canaanitish law.<P>(9) Later Allusions.<P>These are of two kinds. Sometimes we have references to the laws, in other cases we find evidence that they were in operation.<P>(a) By postulating redactors evidence can be banished from the Biblical text. Accordingly, reference will only be made to some passages where this procedure is not followed. <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,26);">Eze 22:26</a> clearly knows of a law that dealt with the subjects of the Priestly Code (P), used its very language (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,10);">Le 10:10</a>f), and like P was to be taught to the people by the priests. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,6);">Ho 4:6</a> also knows of some priestly teaching, which, however, is moral and may therefore be <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,1);">Le 19</a>; but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'11-13\');">8:11-13</a> he speaks of 10,000 written precepts, and here the context points to ritual. The number and the subject-matter of these precepts alike make it certain that he knew a bulky written law which was not merely identical with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">Ex 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'1-\');">22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>, and this passage cannot be met by Wellhausen who resorts to the device of translating it with the omission of the important word "write."<P>(b) Again, in dealing with institutions the references can often be evaded. It is possible to say, "Yes, this passage knows such and such a law, but this law does not really come into existence with D or the Priestly Code (P), but was an older law incorporated in these documents." That argument would apply, e.g. to the necessity for two witnesses in the case of Naboth. That is a law of D, but those who assign Deuteronomy to the reign of Josiah would assert that it is here merely incorporating older material. Again the allusions sometimes show something that differs in some way from the Pentateuch, and it is often impossible to prove that this was a development. The critics in such cases claim that it represents an earlier stage, and it frequently happens that the data are insufficient either to support or refute this view. "But fortunately there are in P certain institutions of which the critics definitely assert that they are late. Accordingly, references that prove the earlier existence of such institutions have a very different probative value. Thus it is alleged that before the exile there was but one national burnt offering and one national meal offering each day: whereas <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,\'1-\');">Nu 28</a> demands two. Now in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,29,36);">1Ki 18:29,36</a>, we find references to the offering of the evening oblation, but <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,20);">2Ki 3:20</a> speaks of \'the time of offering the oblation\' in connection with the morning. Therefore these two oblations were actually in existence centuries before the date assigned to P<>who, on the critical theory, first introduced them. So <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,15);">2Ki 16:15</a> speaks of \'the morning burnt-offering, and the evening meal-offering...with the burnt-offering of all the people of the land, and their meal-offering.\' This again gives us the two burnt offerings, though, on the hypothesis, they were unknown to pre-exilic custom. Similarly in other cases: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,\'1-\');">Jer 32</a> shows us the land laws in actual operation; Ezekiel is familiar with the Jubilee laws<77>though, on the critical hypothesis, these did not yet exist. Jeroboam was acquainted with P\'s date for Tabernacles, though the critics allege that the date was first fixed in the Exile" (OP, 132f) .<P>(10) Other Evidence.<P>We can only mention certain other branches of evidence. There is stylistic evidence of early date (see e.g. Lias, BS, 1910, 20-46, 299-334). Further, the minute accuracy of the narrative of Exd-Num to local conditions, etc. (noticed below, IV,8,(6)), affords valuable testimony. It may be said generally that the whole work<72>laws and narrative<76>mirrors early conditions, whether we regard intellectual, economic or purely legal development (see further below, IV, and OP, passim).<P>5. The Fundamental Improbabilities of the Critical Case:<P>(1) Moral and Psychological Issues.<P>The great fundamental improbabilities of the critical view have hitherto been kept out of sight in order that the arguments for and against the detailed case might not be prejudiced by other considerations. We must now glance at some of the broader issues. The first that occurs is the moral and psychological incredibility. On theory two great frauds were perpetrated<65>in each case by men of the loftiest ethical principles. Deuteronomy was deliberately written in the form of Mosaic speeches by some person or persons who well knew that their work was not Mosaic. P is a make-up<75>nothing more. All its references to the wilderness, the camp, the Tent of Meeting, the approaching occupation of Canaan, etc., are so many touches introduced for the purpose of deceiving. There can be no talk of literary convention, for no such convention existed in Israel. The prophets all spoke in their own names, not in the dress of Moses. David introduced a new law of booty in his own name; the Chronicler repeatedly refers temple ordinances to David and Solomon; Samuel introduced a law of the kingdom in his own name. Yet we are asked to believe that these gigantic forgeries were perpetrated without reason or precedent. Is it credible? Consider the principles inculcated, e.g. the Deuteronomic denunciations of false prophets, the prohibition of adding aught to the law, the passionate injunctions to teach children. Can it be believed that men of such principles would have been guilty of such conduct? Nemo repente fit turpissimus, says the old maxim; can we suppose that the denunciations of those who prophesy falsely in the name of the Lord proceed from the pen of one who was himself forging in that name? Or can it be that the great majority of Bible readers know so little of truth when they meet it that they cannot detect the ring of unquestionable sincerity in the references of the Deuteronomist to the historical situation? Or can we really believe that documents that originated in such a fashion could have exercised the enormous force for righteousness in the world that these documents have exercised? Ex nihilo nihil. Are literary forgeries a suitable parentage for <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a> or Leviticus or Deuteronomy? Are the great monotheistic ethical religions of the world, with all they have meant, really rooted in nothing better than folly and fraud?<P>(2) The Historical Improbability.<P>A second fundamental consideration is the extraordinary historical improbability that these frauds could have been successfully perpetrated. The narrative in Kings undoubtedly relates the finding of what was regarded as an authentic work. King and people, priests and prophets must have been entirely deceived if the critical theory be true. It is surely possible that Huldah and Jeremiah were better judges than modern critics. Similarly in the case of the Priestly Code (P), if e.g. there had been no Levitical cities or no such laws as to tithes and firstlings as were here contemplated, but entirely different provisions on the subjects, how came the people to accept these forgeries so readily? (See further POT, 257f; 294-97.) It is of course quite easy to carry this argument too far. It cannot be doubted that the exile had meant a considerable break in the historical continuity of the national development; but yet once the two views are understood the choice cannot be difficult. On the critical theory elaborate literary forgeries were accepted as genuine ancient laws; on the conservative theory laws were accepted because they were in fact genuine, and interpreted as far as possible to meet the entirely different requirements of the period. This explains both the action of the people and the divergence between preexilic and post-exilic practice. The laws were the same but the interpretation was different.<P>(3) The Divergence between the Laws and Post-exilic Practice.<P>Thirdly, the entire perversion of the true meaning of the laws in post-exilic times makes the critical theory incredible. Examples have been given (see above,4,(5), (6), and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRIESTS+AND+LEVITES">PRIESTS AND LEVITES</a>, passim). It must now suffice to take just one instance to make the argument clear. We must suppose that the author of P deliberately provided that if Levites approached the altar both they and the priests should die (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,3);">Nu 18:3</a>), because he really desired that they should approach the altar and perform certain services there. We must further suppose that Ezra and the people on reading these provisions at once understood that the legislator meant the exact opposite of what he had said, and proceeded to act accordingly (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,31);">1Ch 23:31</a>). This is only one little example. It is so throughout Pentateuch. Everybody understands that the Tabernacle is really the second Temple and wilderness conditions post-exilic, and everybody acts accordingly. Can it be contended that this view is credible?<P>(4) The Testimony of Tradition.<P>Lastly the uniform testimony of tradition is in favor of Mosaic authenticity<74>the tradition of Jews, Samaritans and Christians alike. The national consciousness of a people, the convergent belief of Christendom for 18 centuries are not lightly to be put aside. And what is pitted against them? Theories that vary with each fresh exponent, and that take their start from textual corruption, develop through a confusion between an altar and a house, and end in misdating narratives and laws by 8 or 10 centuries! (see above 3 and 4; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SANCTUARY">SANCTUARY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRIESTS+AND+LEVITES">PRIESTS AND LEVITES</a>).<P>6. The Origin and Transmission of the Pentateuch:<P>If anything at all emerges from the foregoing discussion, it is the impossibility of performing any such analytical feat as the critics attempt. No critical microscope can possibly detect with any reasonable degree of certainty the joins of various sources, even if such sources really exist, and when we find that laws and narratives are constantly misdated by 8 or 10 centuries, we can only admit that no progress at all is possible along the lines that have been followed. On the other hand, certain reasonable results do appear to have been secured, and there are indications of the direction in which we must look for further light.<P>First, then, the Pentateuch contains various notes by later hands. Sometimes the versions enable us to detect and remove those notes, but many are pre-versional. Accordingly, it is often impossible to get beyond probable conjectures on which different minds may differ.<P>Secondly, Genesis contains pre-Mosaic elements, but we cannot determine the scope of these or the number and character of the sources employed, or the extent of the author\'s work.<P>Thirdly, the whole body of the legislation is (subject only to textual criticism) Mosaic. But the laws of Deuteronomy carry with them their framework, the speeches which cannot be severed from them (see SBL, II). The speeches of Deuteronomy in turn carry with them large portions of the narrative of Exodus-Numbers which they presuppose. They do not necessarily carry with them such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">Ex 35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'1-\');">36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,\'1-\');">37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,\'1-\');">38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,\'1-\');">39</a> or <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'1-\');">Nu 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,\'1-\');">3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,\'1-\');">4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,\'1-\');">7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,\'1-\');">26</a>, but <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'1-\');">Nu 1-4</a> contains internal evidence of Mosaic date.<P>At this point we turn to examine certain textual phenomena that throw light on our problem. It may be said that roughly there are two great classes of textual corruption<6F>that which is due to the ordinary processes of copying, perishing, annotating, etc. and that which is due to a conscious and systematic effort to fix or edit a text. In the case of ancient authors, there comes a time sooner or later when scholarship, realizing the corruption that has taken place, makes a systematic attempt to produce, so far as possible, a correct standard text. Instances that will occur to many are to be found in the work of the Massoretes on the Hebrew text, that of Origen and others on the Septuagint, and that of the commission of Peisistratos and subsequently of the Alexandrian critics on Homer. There is evidence that such revisions took place in the case of the Pentateuch. A very important instance is to be found in the chronology of certain portions of Genesis of which three different versions survive, the Massoretic, Samaritan and Septuagintal. Another instance of even greater consequence for the matter in hand is to be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">Ex 35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'1-\');">36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,\'1-\');">37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,\'1-\');">38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,\'1-\');">39</a>. It is well known that the Septuagint preserves an entirely different edition from that of Massoretic Text (supported in the main by the Samaritan and other VSS). Some other examples have been noticed incidentally in the preceding discussion; one other that may be proved by further research to possess enormous importance may be mentioned. It appears that in the law of the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,\'1-\');">De 17</a>) and some other passages where the Massoretic and Samaritan texts speak of a hereditary king, the Septuagint knew nothing of such a person (see further PS, 157-68). The superiority of the Septuagint text in this instance appears to be attested by 1 Samuel, which is unacquainted with any law of the kingdom.<P>Thus, we know of at least three recensions, the M, the Samaritan and the Septuagint. While there are many minor readings (in cases of variation through accidental corruption) in which the two last-named agree, it is nevertheless true that in a general way the Samaritan belongs to the same family as the M, while the Septuagint in the crucial matters represents a different textual tradition from the other two (see The Expositor, September 1911, 200-219). How is this to be explained? According to the worthless story preserved in the letter of Aristeas the Septuagint was translated from manuscripts brought from Jerusalem at a date long subsequent to the Samaritan schism. The fact that the Septuagint preserves a recension so different from both Samaritan and (i.e. from the most authoritative Palestinian tradition of the 5th century BC and its lineal descendants) suggests that this part of the story must be rejected. If so, the Septuagint doubtless represents the text of the Pentateuch prevalent in Egypt and descends from a Hebrew that separated from the ancestor of the M before the Samaritan schism. At this point we must recall the fact that in Jeremiah the Septuagint differs rom Massoretic Text more widely than in any other Biblical book, and the current explanation is that the divergence goes back to the times of Jeremiah, his work having been preserved in two editions, an Egyptian and a Babylonian. We may be sure that if the Jews of Egypt had an edition of Jeremiah, they also had an edition of that law to which Jeremiah refers, and it is probable that the main differences between Septuagint and Massoretic Text (with its allies) are due to the two streams of tradition separating from the time of the exile<6C>the Egyptian and the Babylonian. The narrative of the finding of the Book of the Law in the days of Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,\'1-\');">2Ki 22</a>), which probably refers to Deuteronomy only, suggests that its text at that time depended on the single manuscript found. The phenomena presented by Genesis-Numbers certainly suggest that they too were at one time dependent on a single damaged MS, and that conscious efforts were made to restore the original order<65>in some cases at any rate on a wrong principle (see especially EPC, 114-38; BS, 1913, 270-90). In view of the great divergences of the Septuagint in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">Ex 35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'1-\');">36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,\'1-\');">37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,\'1-\');">38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,\'1-\');">39</a>, it may be taken as certain that in some instances the editing went to considerable lengths.<P>Thus, the history of the Pentateuch, so far as it can be traced, is briefly as follows: The backbone of the book consists of pre-Mosaic sources in Genesis, and Mosaic narratives, speeches and legislation in Exodus-Deuteronomy. To this, notes, archaeological, historical, explanatory, etc., were added by successive readers. The text at one time depended on a single manuscript which was damaged, and one or more attempts were made to repair this damage by rearrangemerit of the material. It may be that some of the narrative chapters, such as <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'1-\');">Nu 1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,\'1-\');">7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,\'1-\');">26</a>, were added from a separate source and amplified or rewritten in the course of some such redaction, but on this head nothing certain can be said. Within a period that is attested by the materials that survive, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,1);">Ex 35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'1-\');">36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,\'1-\');">37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,\'1-\');">38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,\'1-\');">39</a> underwent one or more such redactions. Slighter redactions attested by Samaritan and Septuagint have affected the chronological data, the numbers of the Israelites and some references to post-Mosaic historical events. Further than this it is impossible to go on our present materials.``193';
isbe[6799]='Pentateuch, 3`III. Some Literary Points.<P>1. Style of Legislation:<P>No general estimate of the Pentateuch as literature can or need be attempted. Probably most readers are fully sensible to its literary beauties. Anybody who is not would do well to compare the chapter on Joseph in the Koran (12) with the Biblical narrative. A few words must be said of some of the less obvious matters that would naturally fall into a literary discussion, the aim being rather to draw the reader\'s attention to points that he might overlook.<P>Of the style of the legislation no sufficient estimate can now be formed, for the first requisite of legal style is that it should be clear and unambiguous to contemporaries, and today no judgment can be offered on that head. There is, however, one feature that is of great interest even now, namely, the prevalence in the main of three different styles, each marked by its special adaptation to the end in view. These styles are<P>(1) mnemonic,<P>(2) oratorical, and<P>(3) procedural.<P>The first is familiar in other early legislations. It is lapidary, terse in the extreme, pregnant, and from time to time marked by a rhythm that must have assisted the retention in the memory. Occasionally we meet with parallelism. This is the style of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">Ex 21</a>ff and occasional later passages, such as the judgment in the case of Shelomith\'s son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,10);">Le 24:10</a>). No doubt these laws were memorized by the elders.<P>Secondly, the legislation of Deuteronomy forms part of a speech and was intended for public reading. Accordingly, the laws here take on a distinctly oratorical style. Thirdly, the bulk of the rest of the legislation was intended to remain primarily in the custody of the priests who could certainly write (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,23);">Nu 6:23</a>). This was taken into account, and the style is not terse or oratorical, but reasonably full. It was probably very clear to those for whom the laws were meant. There are minor varieties of style but these are the most important. (On the whole subject see especially PS, 170-224.)<P>2. The Narrative:<P>What holds good of the laws is also true with certain modifications of the narrative. The style varies with the nature of the subject, occasion and purpose. Thus, the itinerary in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'1-\');">Nu 33</a> is intentionally composed in a style which undoubtedly possesses peculiar qualities when chanted to an appropriate tune. The census lists, etc., appear to be written in a formal official manner, and something similar is true of the lists of the spies in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,\'1-\');">Nu 13</a>. There is no ground for surprise in this. In the ancient world style varied according to the genre of the composition to a far greater extent than it does today.<P>3. The Covenant:<P>A literary form that is peculiar to the Pentateuch deserves special notice, namely, the covenant document as a form of literature. Many peoples have had laws that were attributed to some deity, but it is only here that laws are presented in the form of sworn agreements entered into with certain formalities between the nation and God. The literary result is that certain portions of the Pentateuch are in the form of a sort of deed with properly articulated parts. This deed would have been ratified by oath if made between men, as was the covenant between Jacob and Laban, but in a covenant with God this is inapplicable, and the place of the jurat is in each case taken by a discourse setting forth the rewards and penalties attached by God to observance and breach of the covenant respectively. The covenant conception and the idea that the laws acquire force because they are terms in an agreement between God and people, and not merely because they were commanded by God, is one of extraordinary importance in the history of thought and in theology, but we must not through absorption in these aspects of the question fail to notice that the conception found expression in a literary form that is unknown elsewhere and that it provides the key to the comprehension of large sections of the Pentateuch, including almost the whole of Deuteronomy (see in detail SBL, chapter ii).<P>4. Order and Rhythm:<P>Insufficient attention has been paid to order and rhythm generally. Two great principles must be borne in mind:<P>(1) in really good ancient prose the artist appeals to the ear in many subtle ways, and<P>(2) in all such prose, emphasis and meaning as well as beauty are given to a great extent by the order of the words. The figures of the old Greek rhetoricians play a considerable part.<P>Thus the figure called kuklos, "the circle," is sometimes used with great skill. In this the clause or sentence begins and ends with the same word, which denotes alike the sound and the thought. Probably the most effective instance<63>heightened by the meaning, the shortness and the heavy boom of the word<72>is to be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,12);">De 4:12</a>, where there is an impressive "circle" with qol, "voice"<22>the emphasis conveyed by the sound being at least as marked as that conveyed by the sense. This is no isolated instance of the figure; compare e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,1);">Nu 32:1</a>, the "circle" with "cattle"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,2);">14:2</A> that with "would that we had died." Chiasmus is a favorite figure, and assonances, plays on words, etc., are not uncommon. Such traits often add force as well as beauty to the narrative, as may be seen from instances like <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,2);">Ge 1:2</a>: tohu wa-bhohu, "waste and void"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,12);">4:12</a>: na\' wa-nadh, "a fugitive and a wanderer"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,6);">9:6</A>: shophekh dam ha-\'adham, ba-\'adham damo, yishshaphekh, literally, "shedding blood-of man, by-man his-blood shall-be-shed"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,45);">Nu 14:45</a>: wayyakkum-wayyakkethum, "and smote them and beat them down."<P>The prose of the Pentateuch, except in its more formal and official parts, is closely allied to poetry (compare e.g. the Aeschylean "Sin coucheth at the door" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,7);">Ge 4:7</a>); "The fountains of the great deep (were) broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,11);">Ge 7:11</a>); "how I bare you on eagles\' wings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,4);">Ex 19:4</a>)). In the oratorical prose of Deuteronomy we find an imagery and a poetical imagination that are not common among great orators. Its rhythm is marked and the arrangement of the words is extraordinarily forcible, especially in such a chapter as <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,\'1-\');">Deuteronomy 28</a>. It is difficult to convey any idea of how much the book loses in <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ENGLISH+VERSIONS">English Versions of the Bible</a> from the changes of order. Occasionally the rendering does observe the point of the original, e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,36);">De 4:36</a>: "Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice," and if we consider how strikingly this contrasts with the fiat "He made thee to hear his voice out of heaven," some notion may perhaps be formed of the importance of retaining the order. More frequently, however, the English is false to the emphasis and spirit of the Hebrew. Sometimes, but not always, this is due to the exigencies of English idiom. This is the cardinal fault of the King James Version, which otherwise excels so greatly.<P>IV. The Pentateuch as History.<P>1. Textual Criticism and History:<P>Beyond all doubt, the first duty of any who would use the Pentateuch for historical purposes is to consider the light that textual criticism throws upon it. So many of the impossibilities that are relied upon by those who seek to prove that the book is historically worthless may be removed by the simplest operations of scientific textual criticism, that a neglect of this primary precaution must lead to disastrous consequences. After all, it is common experience that a man who sets out to produce a history<72>whether by original composition or compilation<6F>does not intentionally make, e.g., a southward march lead to a point northward of the starting-place, or a woman carry an able-bodied lad of 16 or 17 on her shoulder, or a patriarch linger some 80 years on a deathbed. When such episodes are found, the rudiments of historical judgment require that we should first ask whether the text is in order, and if the evidence points to any easy, natural and well-supported solutions of the difficulties, we are not justified in rejecting them without inquiry and denying to the Pentateuch all historical value. It is a priori far more probable that narratives which have come down to us from a date some 3,000 years back may have suffered slightly in transmission than that the Pentateuch was in the first instance the story of a historical wonderland. It is far more reasonable, e.g., to suppose that in a couple of verses of Exodus a corruption of two letters (attested by Aquila) has taken place in the Massoretic Text than that the Pentateuch contains two absolutely inconsistent accounts of the origin of the priesthood (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRIESTS+AND+LEVITES">PRIESTS AND LEVITES</a>). Accordingly, the first principle of any scientific use of the Pentateuch for historical purposes must be to take account of textual criticism.<P>2. Hebrew Methods of Expression:<P>Having discovered as nearly as may be what the author wrote, the next step must be to consider what he meant by it. Here, unfortunately, the modern inquirer is apt to neglect many most necessary precautions. It would be a truism, but for the fact that it is so often disregarded, to say that the whole of a narrative must be carefully read in order to ascertain the author\'s meaning; e.g. how often we hear that <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Ge 14</a> represents Abram as having inflicted a defeat on the enemy with only 318 men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,14);">14:14</A>), whereas from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,24);">14:24</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,13);">14:13</A>) it appears that in addition to these his allies Aner, Eshcol and Mamre (i.e. as we shall see, the inhabitants of certain localities) had accompanied him! Sometimes the clue to the precise meaning of a story is to be found near the end: e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,\'1\');">Jos 22</a> we do not see clearly what kind of an altar the trans-Jordanic tribes had erected (and consequently why their conduct was open to objection) till <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,28);">22:28</a> when we learn that this was an altar of the pattern of the altar of burnt offering, and so bore not the slightest resemblance to such lawful altars as those of Moses and Joshua (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALTAR">ALTAR</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SANCTUARY">SANCTUARY</a>). Nor is this the only instance in which the methods of expression adopted cause trouble to some modern readers; e.g. the word "all" is sometimes used in a way that apparently presents difficulties to some minds. Thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,6);">Ex 9:6</a> it is possible to interpret "all" in the most sweeping sense and then see a contradiction in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,19,22);">9:19,22</a>, etc., which recognize that some cattle still existed. Or again the term may be regarded as limited by <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,3);">9:3</a> to all the cattle in the field.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UPPERCASE">ALL</a>.<P>3. Personification and Genealogies:<P>At this point two further idiosyncrasies of the Semitic genius must be noted<65>the habits of personification and the genealogical tendency; e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,\'12-21\');">Nu 20:12-21</a>, Edom and Israel are personified: "thy brother Israel," "Edom came out against him," etc. Nobody here mistakes the meaning. Similarly with genealogical methods of expression. The Semites spoke of many relationships in a way that is foreign to occidental methods. Thus the Hebrew for "30 years old" is "son of 30 years." Again we read "He was the father of such as dwell in tents" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,20);">Ge 4:20</a>). These habits (of personification and genealogical expression of relationships) are greatly extended, e.g. "And Canaan begat Zidon his first-born" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,15);">Ge 10:15</a>). Often this leads to no trouble, yet strangely enough men who will grasp these methods when dealing with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Genesis 10</a> will claim that <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Genesis 14</a> cannot be historical because localities are there personified and grouped in relationships. Yet if we are to estimate the historical value of the narrative, we must surely be willing to apply. the same methods to one chapter as to another if the sense appears to demand this.<P>See, further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UPPERCASE">GENEALOGY</a>.<P>4. Literary Form:<P>A further consideration that is not always heeded is the exigency of literary form; e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,\'1-\');">Ge 24</a> there occurs a dialogue. Strangely enough, an attack has been made on the historical character of Genesis on this ground. It cannot be supposed<65>so runs the argument<6E>that we have here a literal report of what was said. This entirely ignores the practice of all literary artists. Such passages are to be read as giving a literary presentation of what occurred; they convey a far truer and more vivid idea of what passed than could an actual literal report of the mere words, divorced from the gestures, glances and modulations of the voice that play such an important part in conversation.<P>5. The Sacred Numbers:<P>Another matter is the influence of the sacred numbers on the text; e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'1-\');">Nu 33</a> the journeys seem designed to present 40 stations and must not be held to exclude camping at other stations not mentioned; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10</a> probably contained 70 names in the original text. This is a technical consideration which must be borne in mind, and so, too, must the Hebrew habit of using certain round numbers to express an unspecified time: When, for instance, we read that somebody was 40 or 60 years old, we are not to take these words literally. "Forty years old" often seems to correspond to "after he had reached man\'s estate".<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBER">NUMBER</a>.<P>6. Habits of Thought:<P>Still more important is it to endeavor to appreciate the habits of thought of those for whom the Pentateuch was first intended, and to seek to read it in the light of archaic ideas. One instance must suffice. Of the many explanations of names few are philologically correct. It is certain that Noah is not connected with the Hebrew for "to comfort" or Moses with "draw out"<22>even if Egyptian princesses spoke Hebrew. The etymological key will not fit. Yet we must ask ourselves whether the narrator ever thought that it did. In times when names were supposed to have some mystic relation to their bearers they might be conceived as standing also in some mystic relation to events either present or future; it is not clear that the true original meaning of the narratives was not to suggest this in literary form. How far the ancient Hebrews were from regarding names in the same light as we do may be seen from such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,20);">Ex 23:20</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,27);">Isa 30:27</a>; see further EPC, 47ff.<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NAMES,+PROPER">NAMES, PROPER</a>.<P>7. National Coloring:<P>The Pentateuch is beyond all doubt an intensely national work. Its outlook is so essentially Israelite that no reader could fail to notice the fact, and it is therefore unnecessary to cite proofs. Doubtless this has in many instances led to its presenting a view of history with which the contemporary peoples would not have agreed. It is not to be supposed that the exodus was an event of much significance in the Egypt of Moses, however important it may appear to the Egyptians of today; and this suggests two points. On the one hand we must admit that to most contemporaries the Pentateuchal narratives must have seemed out of all perspective; on the other the course of subsequent history has shown that the Mosaic sense of perspective was in reality the true one, however absurd it may have seemed to the nations of his own day. Consequently in using the Pentateuch for historical purposes we must always apply two standards<64>the contemporary and the historical. In the days of Moses the narrative might often have looked to the outsider like the attempt of the frog in the fable to attain to the size of an ox; for us, with the light of history upon it, the values are very different. The national coloring, the medium through which the events are seen, has proved to be true, and the seemingly insignificant doings of unimportant people have turned out to be events of prime historical importance.<P>There is another aspect of the national coloring of the Pentateuch to be borne in mind. If ever there was a book which revealed the inmost soul of a people, that book is the Pentateuch. This will be considered in V, below, but for the present we are concerned with its historical significance. In estimating actions, motives, laws, policy<63>all that goes to make history<72>character is necessarily a factor of the utmost consequence. Now here we have a book that at every point reveals and at the same t ime grips the national character. Alike in contents and in form the legislation is adapted with the utmost nicety to the nature of the people for which it was promulgated.<P>8. How Far the Pentateuch Is Trustworthy:<P>When due allowance has been made for all the various matters enumerated above, what can be said as to the trustworthiness of the Pentateuchal history? The answer is entirely favorable.<P>(1) Contemporaneous Information.<P>In the first place the discussion as to the dating of the Pentateuch (above, II, 4) has shown that we have in it documents that are in many cases certainly contemporaneous with the matters to which they relate and have been preserved in a form that is substantially original. Thus we have seen that the wording of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,19);">Ge 10:19</a> cannot be later than the age of Abraham and that the legislation of the last four books is Mosaic. Now contemporaneousness is the first essential of credibility.<P>(2) Character of Our Informants.<P>Given the fact (guaranteed by the contemporaneousness of the sources) that our informants had the means of providing accurate information if they so desired, we have to ask whether they were truthful and able. As to the ability no doubt is possible; genius is stamped on every page of the Pentateuch. Similarly as to truthfulness. The conscience of the narrators is essentially ethical. This appears of course most strongly in the case of the legislation (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,11);">Le 19:11</a>) and the attribution of truthfulness to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,6);">Ex 34:6</a>), but it may readily be detected throughout; e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,12);">Ge 20:12</a> the narrative clearly shows that truthfulness was esteemed as a virtue by the ancient Hebrews. Throughout, the faults of the dramatis personae are never minimized even when the narrator\'s sympathy is with them. Nor is there any attempt to belittle the opponents of Israel\'s heroes. Consider on the one hand the magnanimity of Esau\'s character and on the other the very glaring light that is thrown on the weaknesses of Jacob, Judah, Aaron. If we are taught to know the Moses who prays, "And if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,32);">Ex 32:32</a>), we are also shown his frequent complaints, and we make acquaintance with the hot-tempered manslayer and the lawgiver who disobeyed his God.<P>(3) Historical Genius of the People.<P>Strangely enough, those who desire to discuss the trustworthiness of the Pentateuch often go far afield to note the habits of other nations and, selecting according to their bias peoples that have a good or a bad reputation in the matter of historical tradition, proceed to argue for or against the Pentateuchal narrative on this basis. Such procedure is alike unjust and unscientific. It is unscientific because the object of the inquirer is to obtain knowledge as to the habits of this people, and in view of the great divergences that may be observed among different races the comparative method is clearly inapplicable; it is unjust because this people is entitled to be judged on its own merits or defects, not on the merits or defects of others. Now it is a bare statement of fact that the Jews possess the historical sense to a preeminent degree. Nobody who surveys their long history and examines their customs and practices to this day can fairly doubt that fact. This is no recent development; it is most convincingly attested by the Pentateuch itself, which here, as elsewhere, faithfully mirrors the spirit of the race. What is the highest guaranty of truth, a guaranty to which unquestioning appeal may be made in the firm assurance that it will carry conviction to all who hear? "Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations: Ask thy father and he will show thee; Thine elders, and they will tell thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,7);">De 32:7</a>). "For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,32);">De 4:32</a>). Conversely, the due handing down of tradition is a religious duty: "And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? that ye shall say," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,26);">Ex 12:26</a>f). "Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes saw, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life; but make them known unto thy children, and thy children\'s children" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,9);">De 4:9</a>). It is needless to multiply quotations. Enough has been said to show clearly the attitude of this people toward history.<P>(4) Good Faith of Deuteronomy.<P>Closely connected with the preceding is the argument from the very obvious good faith of the speeches in Deuteronomy. It is not possible to read the references to events in such a chapter as <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,\'1-\');">Deuteronomy 4</a> without realizing that the speaker most fully believed the truth of his statements. The most unquestionable sincerity is impressed upon the chapter. The speaker is referring to what he believes with all the faith of which he is capable. Even for those who doubt the Mosaic authenticity of these speeches there can be no doubt as to the writer\'s unquestioning acceptance of the historical consciousness of the people. But once the Mosaic authenticity is established the argument becomes overwhelming. How could Moses have spoken to people of an event so impressive and unparalleled as having happened within their own recollection if it had not really occurred?<P>(5) Nature of the Events Recorded.<P>Another very important consideration arises from the nature of the events recorded. No nation, it has often been remarked, would gratuitously invent a story of its enslavement to another. The extreme sobriety of the patriarchal narratives, the absence of miracle, the lack of any tendency to display the ancestors of the people as conquerors or great personages, are marks of credibility. Many of the episodes in the Mosaic age are extraordinarily probable. Take the stories of the rebelliousness of the people, of their complaints of the water, the food, and so on: what could be more in accordance with likelihood? On the other hand there is another group of narratives to which the converse argument applies. A Sinai cannot be made part of a nation\'s consciousness by a clever story-teller or a literary forger. The unparalleled nature of the events narrated was recognized quite as clearly by the ancient Hebrews as it is today (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,32);">De 4:32</a>ff). It is incredible that such a story could have been made up and successfully palmed off on the whole nation. A further point that may be mentioned in this connection is the witness of subsequent history to the truth of the narrative. Such a unique history as that of the Jews, such tremendous consequences as their religion has had on the fortunes of mankind, require for their explanation causal events of sufficient magnitude.<P>(6) External Corroborations.<P>All investigation of evidence depends on a single principle: "The coincidences of the truth are infinite." In other words, a false story will sooner or later become involved in conflict with ascertained facts. The Biblical narrative has been subjected to the most rigorous cross-examination from every point of view for more than a century. Time after time confident assertions have been made that its falsehood has been definitely proved, and in each case the Pentateuch has come out from the test triumphant. The details will for the most part be found enumerated or referred to under the separate articles. Here it must suffice just to refer to a few matters. It was said that the whole local coloring of the Egyptian scenes was entirely false, e.g. that the vine did not grow in Egypt. Egyptology has in every instance vindicated the minute accuracy of the Pentateuch, down to even the non-mention of earthenware (in which the discolored Nile waters can be kept clean) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,19);">Ex 7:19</a> and the very food of the lower classes in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,5);">Nu 11:5</a>. It was said that writing was unknown in the days of Moses, but Egyptology and Assyriology have utterly demolished this. The historical character of many of the names has been strengthened by recent discoveries (see e.g. <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AMRAPHEL">AMRAPHEL</a>). From another point of view modern observation of the habits of the quails has shown that the narrative of Numbers is minutely accurate and must be the work of an eyewitness. From the ends of the earth there comes confirmation of the details of the evolution of law as depicted in the Pentateuch. Finally it is worth noting that even the details of some of the covenants in Genesis are confirmed by historical parallels (Churchman,1908,17f).<P>It is often said that history in the true sense was invented by the Greeks and that the Hebrew genius was so intent on the divine guidance that it neglected secondary causes altogether. There is a large measure of truth in this view; but so far as the Pentateuch is concerned it can be greatly overstated.<P>9. The Pentateuch as Reasoned History:<P>One great criticism that falls to be made is entirely in favor of the Hebrew as against some Greeks, namely, the superior art with which the causes are given. A Thucydides would have stated the reasons that induced Pharaoh to persecute the Israelites, or Abraham and Lot to separate, or Korah, Dathan and Abiram and their followers to rebel; but every reader would have known precisely what he was doing and many who can read the material passages of the Pentateuch with delight would have been totally unable to grapple with his presentation of the narrative. The audience is here more unsophisticated and the material presented in more artistic form. In truth, any historian who sat down to compose a philosophical history of the period covered by the Pentateuch would in many instances be surprised at the lavish material it offered to him. A second criticism is more obvious. The writer clearly had no knowledge of the other side of the case. For example, the secondary causes for the defeat near Hormah are plain enough so far as they are internal to the Israelites<65>lack of morale, discipline and leadership, division of opinion, discouragement produced by the divine disapproval testified by the absence from the army of Moses and the Ark, and the warnings of the former<65>but the secondary causes on the side of the Amalekites and Canaanites are entirely omitted. Thus it generally happens that we do not get the same kind of view of the events as might be possible if we could have both sides. Naturally this is largely the case with the work of every historian who tells the story from one side only and is not peculiar to the Pentateuch. Thirdly, the object of the Pentateuch is not merely to inform, but to persuade. It is primarily statesmanship, not literature, and its form is influenced by this fact. Seeking to sway conduct, not to provide a mere philosophical exposition of history, it belongs to a different (and higher) category from the latter, and where it has occasion to use the same material puts it in a different way, e.g. by assigning as motives for obeying laws reasons that the philosophic historian would have advanced as causes for their enactment. To some extent, therefore, an attempt to criticize the Pentateuch from the standpoint of philosophic history is an attempt to express it in terms of something that is incommensurable with it.<P>V. The Character of the Pentateuch.<P>1. Hindu Law Books:<P>The following sentences from Maine\'s Early Law and Custom form a suggestive introduction to any consideration of the character of the Pentateuch:<P>"The theory upon which these schools of learned men worked, from the ancient, perhaps very ancient, Apastamba and Gautama to the late Manu and the still later Narada, is perhaps still held by some persons of earnest religious convictions, but in time now buried it affected every walk of thought. The fundamental assumption is that a sacred or inspired literature being once believed to exist, all knowledge is contained in it. The Hindu way of putting it was, and is, not simply that the Scripture is true, but that everything which is true is contained in the Scripture....It is to be observed that such a theory, firmly held during the infancy of systematic thought, tends to work itself into fact. As the human mind advances, accumulating observation and accumulating reflection, nascent philosophy and dawning science are read into the sacred literature, while they are at the same time limited by the ruling ideas of its priestly authors. But as the mass of this literature grows through the additions made to it by successive expositors, it gradually specializes itself, and subjects, at first mixed together under vague general conceptions, become separated from one another and isolated. In the history of law the most important early specialization is that which separates what a man ought to do from what he ought to know. A great part of the religious literature, including the Creation of the Universe, the structure of Heaven, Hell, and the World or Worlds, and the nature of the Gods, falls under the last head, what a man ought to know. Law-books first appear as a subdivision of the first branch, what a man should do. Thus the most ancient books of this class are short manuals of conduct for an Aryan Hindu who would lead a perfect life. They contain much more ritual than law, a great deal more about the impurity caused by touching impure things than about crime, a great deal more about penances than about punishments" (pp. 16-18).<P>It is impossible not to see the resemblances to the Pentateuch that these sentences suggest. Particularly interesting is the commentary they provide on the attitude of Moses toward knowledge: "The secret things belong unto Yahweh our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',29,29);">De 29:29</a>).<P>But if the Pentateuch has significant resemblances to other old law books, there are differences that are even more significant.<P>2. Differences:<P>"By an act that is unparalleled in history a God took to Himself a people by means of a sworn agreement. Some words that are fundamental for our purpose must be quoted from the offer; \'Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.\' The views here expressed dominate the legislation. Holiness<73>the correlative holiness to which the Israelites must attain because the Lord their God is holy<6C>embraces much that is not germane to our subject, but it also covers the whole field of national and individual righteousness. The duty to God that is laid upon the Israelites in these words is a duty that has practical consequences in every phase of social life. I have already quoted a sentence from Sir Henry Maine in which he speaks of the uniformity with which religion and law are implicated in archaic legislation. There is a stage in human development where life is generally seen whole, and it is to this stage that the Pentateuch belongs. But no other legislation so takes up one department of man\'s life after another and impresses on them all the relationship of God and people. Perhaps nothing will so clearly bring out my meaning as a statement of some of the more fundamental differences between the Pentateuchal legislation and the old Indian law-books which often provide excellent parallels to it. Those to which I desire to draw particular attention are as follows: The Indian law-books have no idea of national (as distinct from individual) righteousness<73>a conception that entered the world with the Mosaic legislation and has perhaps not made very much progress there since. There is no personal God: hence, His personal interest in righteousness is lacking: hence, too, there can be no relationship between God and people: and while there is a supernatural element in the contemplated results of human actions, there is nothing that can in the slightest degree compare with the Personal Divine intervention that is so often promised in the Pentateuchal laws. The caste system, like Hammurabi\'s class system, leads to distinctions that are always inequitable. The conception of loving one\'s neighbour and one\'s sojourner as oneself are alike lacking. The systematic provisions for poor relief are absent, and the legislation is generally on a lower ethical and moral level, while some of the penalties are distinguished by the most perverted and barbarous cruelty. All these points are embraced in the special relationship of the One God and the peculiar treasure with its resulting need for national and individual holiness" (PS, 330f).<P>3. Holiness:<P>These sentences indicate some of the most interesting of the distinguishing features of the Pentateuch<63>its national character, its catholic view of life, its attitude toward the Divine, and some at any rate of its most peculiar teachings. It is worth noting that Judaism, the oldest of the religions which it has influenced, attaches particular importance to one chapter, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">Le 19</a>. The keynote of that chapter is the command: \'Holy shall ye be, for holy am I the Lord your God\'<27>to preserve the order and emphasis of the original words. This has been called the Jew\'s imitatio Dei, though a few moments\' reflection shows that the use of the word "imitation" is here inaccurate. Now this book with this teaching has exercised a unique influence on the world\'s history, for it must be remembered that Judaism, Christianity and Islam spring ultimately from its teachings, and it is impossible to sever it from the history of the "people of the book"<22>as Mohammed called them. It appears then that it possesses in some unique way both an intensely national and an intensely universal character and a few words must be said as to this.<P>4. The Universal Aspect:<P>The great literary qualities of the work have undoubtedly been an important factor. All readers have felt the fascination of the stories of Genesis. The Jewish character has also counted for much; so again have the moral and ethical doctrines, and the miraculous and unprecedented nature of the events narrated. And yet there is much that might have been thought to militate against the book\'s obtaining any wide influence. Apart from some phrases about all the families of the earth being blessed (or blessing themselves) in the seed of Abraham, there is very little in its direct teaching to suggest that it was ever intended to be of universal application. Possibly these phrases only mean that other nations will use Israel as a typical example of greatness and happiness and pray that they may attain an equal degree of glory and prosperity. Moreover, the Pentateuch provides for a sacrificial system that has long ceased to exist, and a corpus of jural law that has not been adopted by other peoples. Of its most characteristic requirement<6E>holiness<73>large elements are rejected by all save its own people. Wherein then lies its universal element? How came this the most intensely national of books to exercise a world-wide and ever-growing influence? The reason lies in the very first sentence: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This doctrine of the unity of an Almighty God is the answer to our question. Teach that there is a God and One Only All-powerful God, and the book that tells of Him acquires a message to all His creatures.<P>5. The National Aspect:<P>Of the national character of the work something has already been said. It is remarkable that for its own people it has in very truth contained life and length of days, for it has been in and through that book that the Jews have maintained themselves throughout their unique history. If it be asked wherein the secret of this strength lies, the answer is in the combination of the national and the religious. The course of history must have been entirely different if the Pentateuch had not been the book of the people long before the Jews became the people of the book.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The current critical view is set forth in vast numbers of books. The following may be mentioned: LOT; Cornill\'s Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby\'s Hexateuch (a 2nd edition of the Introduction without the text has been published as The Composition of the Hexateuch); the volumes of the ICC, Westminster Comms. and Century Bible. Slightly less thoroughgoing views are put forward in the German Introductions of Konig (1893), Baudissin (1901), Sellin (1910); and Geden, Outlines of Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (1909); Kittel, Scientific Study of the Old Testament (English translation, 1910); Eerdm. has entirely divergent critical views; POT; TMH, I, and W. Moller, Are the Critics Right? and Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung; Robertson, Early Religion of Israel; Van Hoonacker, Lieu du culte, and Sacerdoce levitique are all much more conservative and valuable. J.H. Raven, Old Testament Intro, gives a good presentation of the most conservative case. The views taken in this article are represented by SBL, EPC, OP, PS, Troelstra, The Name of God, and in some matters, TMH, I.``193';
isbe[6800]='Pentateuch, the Samaritan`sa-mar\'-i-tan:<P><b>I. KNOWLEDGE OF SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH</b><P class="in15">1. In Older Times<P class="in15">2. Revived Knowledge<P><b>II. CODICES AND SCRIPT</b><P class="in15">1. Nablus Roll<P class="in15">2. The Script<P class="in15">3. Peculiarities of Writing<P class="in15">4. The Tarikh<P class="in15">5. The Mode of Pronunciation<P class="in15">6. Age of the Nablus Roll<P><b>III. RELATION OF THE SAMARITAN RECENSION TO THE MASSORETIC TEXT AND TO THE SEPTUAGINT</b><P class="in15">1. Relation to the Massoretic Text: Classification of Differences<P class="in30">(1) Examples of Accidental Variations<P class="in45">(a) Due to Mistakes of Sight<P class="in45">(b) Variations Due to Mistakes of Hearing<P class="in45">(c) Changes Due to Deficient Attention<P class="in30">(2) Intentional<P class="in45">(a) Grammatical<P class="in45">(b) Logical<P class="in45">(c) Doctrinal<P class="in15">2. Relation of Samaritan Recension to Septuagint<P class="in30">(1) Statement of Hypotheses<P class="in30">(2) Review of These Hypotheses<P><b>IV. BEARING ON THE PENTATEUCHAL QUESTION</b><P><b>V. TARGUMS AND CHRONICLE</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The existence of a Samaritan community in Nablus is generally known, and the fact that they have a recension of the Pentateuch which differs in some respects from the Massoretic has been long recognized as important.<P>I. Knowledge of Samaritan Pentateuch.<P>1. In Older Times:<P>Of the Greek Fathers Origen knew of it and notes two insertions which do not appear in the Massoretic Text<78><a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,1);">Nu 13:1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,12);">21:12</A>, drawn from <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,2);">De 1:2</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,18);">2:18</A>. Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicon compares the ages of the patriarchs before Abraham in the Septuagint with those in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Massoretic Text. Epiphanius is aware that the Samaritans acknowledged the Pentateuch alone as canonical. Cyril of Jerusalem notes agreement of Septuagint and Samaritan in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,8);">Ge 4:8</a>. These are the principal evidences of knowledge of this recension among the Greek Fathers. Jerome notes some omissions in the Massoretic Text and supplies them from the Samaritan Text. The Talmud shows that the Jews retained a knowledge of the Samaritan Pentateuch longer, and speaks contemptuously of the points in which it differs from the Massoretic Text. Since the differences observed by the Fathers and the Talmudists are to be seen in the Samaritan Pentateuch before us, they afford evidence of its authenticity.<P>2. Revived Knowledge:<P>After nearly a millennium of oblivion the Samaritan Pentateuch was restored to the knowledge of Christendom by Pietro de la Valle who in 1616 purchased a copy from the Samaritan community which then existed in Damascus. This copy was presented in 1623 to the Paris Oratory and shortly after published in the Paris Polyglot under the editorship of Morinus, a priest of the Oratory who had been a Protestant. He emphasized the difference between the Massoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch for argumentative reasons, in order to prove the necessity for the intervention of the church to settle which was Scripture. A fierce controversy resulted, in which various divines, Protestant and Catholic, took part. Since then copies of this recension have multiplied in Europe and America. All of them may be regarded as copies ultimately of the Nablus roll. These copies are in the form, not of rolls, but of codices or bound volumes. They are usually written in two columns to the page, one being the Targum or interpretation and this is sometimes in Aramaic and sometimes in Arabic. Some codices show three columns with both Targums. There are probably nearly 100 of these codices in various libraries in Europe and America. These are all written in the Samaritan script and differ only by scribal blunders.<P>II. Codices and Script.<P>1. Nablus Roll:<P>The visitor to the Samaritans is usually shown an ancient roll, but only rarely is the most ancient exhibited, and when so exhibited still more rarely is it in circumstances in which it may be examined.<P>Dr. Mills, who spent three months in the Samaritan community, was able to make a careful though interrupted study of it. His description (Nablus and the Modern Samaritans, 312) is that "the roll is of parchment, written in columns, 13 inches deep, and 7 1/2 inches wide. The writing is in a fair hand, rather small; each column contains from 70 to 72 lines, and the whole roll contains 110 columns. The name of the scribe is written in a kind of acrostic, running through these columns, and is found in the Book of Deuteronomy The roll has the appearance of very great antiquity, but is wonderfully well preserved, considering its venerable age. It is worn out and torn in many places and patched with re-written parchment; in many other places, where not torn, the writing is unreadable. It seemed to me that about two-thirds of the original is still readable. The skins of which the roll is composed are of equal size and measure each 25 inches long by 15 inches wide." Dr. Rosen\'s account on the authority of Kraus (Zeitschr. der deulschmorgenl. Gesellsch., XVIII, 582) agrees with this, adding that the "breadth of the writing is a line and the space between is similar." Both observers have noted that the parchment has been written only on the "hair" side. It is preserved in a silk covering enclosed in a silver case embossed with arabesque ornaments.<P>2. The Script:<P>The reader on opening one of the codices of the Samaritan Pentateuch recognizes at once the difference of the writing from the characters in an ordinary Hebrew Bible. The Jews admit that the character in which the Samaritan Pentateuch is written is older than their square character. It is said in the Talmud (Sanhedhrin 21b): "The law at first was given to Israel in \'ibhri letters and in the holy tongue and again by Ezra in the square (\'ashurith) character and the Aramaic tongue. Israel chose for themselves the \'ashurith character and the holy tongue: they left to the hedhyototh ("uncultured") the \'ibhri character and the Aramaic tongue<75>\'the Cuthaeans are the hedhyototh,\' said Rabbi Chasda." When Jewish hatred of the Samaritans, and the contempt of the Pharisees for them are remembered, this admission amounts to a demonstration. The Samaritan script resembles that on the Maccabean coins, but is not identical with it. It may be regarded as between the square character and the angular, the latter as is seen in the manuscript and the Siloam inscription. Another intermediate form, that found on the Assouan papyri, owes the differences it presents to having been written with a reed on papyrus. As the chronology of these scripts is of importance we subjoin those principally in question.<P>The study of these alphabets. will confirm the statement above made that the Samaritan alphabet is, in evolution, between the square character and the angular, nearer the latter than the former, while the characters of the Assouan papyri are nearer the former than the latter. Another point to be observed is that the letters which resemble each other in one alphabet do not always resemble in another. We can thus, from comparison of the letters liable to be confused, form a guess as to the script in which the document containing the confusion written.<P>3. Peculiarities in Writing:<P>In inscriptions the lapidary had no hesitation, irrespective of syllables, in completing in the next line any word for which he had not sufficient room. Thus, the beginnings and endings of lines were directly under each other, as on the MS. In the papyri the words are not divided, but the scribe was not particular to have the ends of lines directly under each other. The scribe of the square character by use of literae dilatabiles secured this without dividing the words. The Samaritan secured this end by wider spacing. The first letter or couple of letters of each line are placed directly under the first letter or letters of the preceding line<6E>so with the last letters<72>two or three<65>of the line, while the other words are spread out to fill up the space. The only exception to this is a paragraph ending. Words are separated from each other by dots; sentences by a sign like our colon. The Torah is divided into 966 qisam or paragraphs. The termination of these is shown by the colon having a dot added to it, thus: Sometimes this is reinforced by a line and an angle. These qisam are often enumerated on the margin; sometimes, in later manuscripts in Arabic numerals. A blank space sometimes separates one of these qisam from the next.<P>4. The Tarikh:<P>When the scribe wished to inform the reader of his personality and the place where he had written the manuscript he made use of a peculiar device. In copying he left a space vacant in the middle of a column. The space thus left is every now and then bridged by a single letter. These letters read down the column form words and sentences which convey the information. In the case of the Nablus roll this tarikh occurs in Deuteronomy and occupies three columns. In this it is said, "I Abishua, son of Pinhas (Phinehas), son of Eleazar, son of Aharun (Aaron) the priest, have written this holy book in the door of the tabernacle of the congregation in Mt. Gerizim in the 13th year of the rule of the children of Israel in the land of Canaan." Most of the codices in the libraries of Europe and America have like information given in a similar manner. This tarikh is usually Hebrew, but sometimes it is in the Samaritan Aramaic. Falsification of the date merely is practically impossible; the forgery must be the work of the first scribe.<P>5. The Mode of Pronunciation:<P>Not only has the difference of script to be considered, but also the different values assigned to the letters. The names given to the letters differ considerably from the Hebrew, as may be seen above. There are no vowel points or signs of reduplication. Only B and P of the BeGaDH-KePHaTH letters are aspirated. The most singular peculiarity is that none of the gutturals is pronounced at all<6C>a peculiarity which explains some of the names given to the letters. This characteristic appears all the more striking when it is remembered how prominent gutturals are in Arabic, the everyday language of the Samaritans. The <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-5\');">Genesis 1:1-5</a> are subjoined according to the Samaritan pronunciation, as taken down by Petermann (Versuch einer hebr. Formenlehre, 161), from the reading of Amram the high priest: Barashet bara Eluwem it ashshamem wit aarets. Waarets ayata-te\'u ube\'u waashek al fani...turn uru Eluwem amra, efet al fani ammem waya\'mer Eluwem ya\'i or way\'ai or wayere Eluwem it a\' or ki tov wayabdel Eluwem bin a\'ir ubin aashek uyikra Eluwem la\'or yom ula \'ashek qara lila. Uyai \'erev uyai beqar yom a\'ad.<P>6. Age of the Nablus Roll:<P>There is no doubt that if the inscription given above is really in the manuscript it is a forgery written on the skin at the first. Of its falsity also there is no doubt. The Tell el-Amarna Letters sent from Canaan and nearly contemporary with the Israelite conquest of the land were impressed with cuneiform characters and the language was Babylonian. Neglecting the tarikh, we may examine the matter independently and come to certain conclusions. If it is the original from which the other manuscripts have been copied we are forced to assume a date earlier at least than the 10th century AD, which is the date of the earliest Hebrew MS. The script dates from the Hasmoneans. The reason of this mode of writing being perpetuated in copying the Law must be found in some special sanctity in the document from which the copies were made originally. Dr. Mills seems almost inclined to believe the authenticity of the tarikh. His reasons, however, have been rendered valueless by recent discoveries. Dr. Cowley, on the other hand, would date it somewhere about the 12th century AD, or from that to the 14th. With all the respect due to such a scholar we venture to think his view untenable. His hypothesis is that an old manuscript was found and the tarikh now seen in it was afterward added. That, however, is impossible unless a new skin<69>the newness of which would be obvious<75>had been written over and inserted. Even the comparatively slight change implied in turning Ishmael into Israel in the tarikh in the Nablus roll necessitates a great adjustment of lines, as the letters of the tarikh must read horizontally as well as perpendicularly. If that change were made, the date would then be approximately 650 AD, much older than Cowley\'s 12th century. There is, however, nothing in this to explain the sanctity given to this MS. There is a tradition that the roll was saved from fire, that, it leaped out of the fire in the presence of Nebuchadnezzar. If it were found unconsumed when the temple on Mt. Gerizim was burned by John Hyrcanus I, this would account for the veneration in which it is held. It would account also for the stereotyping of the script. The angular script prevailed until near the time of Alexander the Great. In it or in a script akin to it the copy of the Law must have been written which Manasseh, the son-in-law of Sanballat, brought to Samaria. The preservation of such a copy would be ascribed to miracle and the script consecrated.<P>III. Relation of the Samaritan Recension to the Massoretic Text and to the Septuagint.<P>1. Relation to Massoretic Text: Classification of Differences:<P>While the reader of the Samaritan Pentateuch will not fail to observe its practical identity with the Massoretic Text, closer study reveals numerous, if minor, differences.<P>These differences were classified by Gesenius. Besides being illogical, his classification is faulty, as founded on the assumption that the Samaritan Pentateuch text is the later. The same may be said of Kohn\'s. We would venture on another classification of these variations, deriving the principle of division from their origin. These variations were due either to<P>(1) accident or<P>(2) intention.<P>(1) The first of these classes arose from the way in which books were multiplied in ancient days. Most commonly one read and a score of scribes, probably slaves, wrote to this dictation. Hence, errors might arise<P>(a) when from similarity of letters the reader mistook one word for another.<P>(b) If the reader\'s pronunciation was not distinct the scribes might mis-hear and therefore write the word amiss.<P>(c) Further, if the reader began a sentence which opened in a way that generally was followed by certain words or phrases, he might inadvertently conclude it, not in the way it was written before him, but in the customary phrase. In the same way the scribe through defective attention might also blunder. Thus the accidental variations may be regarded as due to mistakes of sight, hearing and attention.<P>(2) Variations due to intention are either<P>(a) grammatical, the removal of peculiarities and conforming them to usage, or<P>(b) logical, as when a command having been given, the fulfillment is felt to follow as a logical necessity and so is narrated, or, if narrated, is omitted according to the ideas of the scribe;<P>(c) doctrinal changes introduced into the text to suit the doctrinal position of one side or other. Questions of propriety also lead to alterations<6E>these may be regarded as quasi-doctrinal.<P>(1) Examples of Accidental Variations.<P>(a) Due to Mistakes of Sight:<P>The cause of mistakes of sight is the likeness of differing letters. These, however, differ in different scripts, as may be proved by consideration of the table of alphabets. Some of these mistakes found in connection with the Samaritan Pentateuch appear to be mistakes due to the resemblance of letters in the Samaritan script. Most of these are obvious blunders; thus, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,32);">Ge 19:32</a>, we have the meaningless tabhinu instead of \'abhini, "our father," from the likeness of the Samaritan "t" to "a." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,29);">Ge 25:29</a> we have tsazedh instead of yazedh, "to seethe," because of the likeness of a Samaritan "ts", to "y" or "i". These, while in Blayney\'s transcription of Walton\'s text, are not in Petermann or the Samaritan Targum. The above examples are mistakes in Samaritan manuscripts, but there are mistakes also in the Massoretic Text. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,40);">Ge 27:40</a> the Revised Version (British and American) rendering is "When thou shalt break loose, thou shalt shake his yoke from off thy neck." This rendering does violence to the sense of both verbs and results in a tautology. In the Hiphil the first verb rudh ought to mean "to cause to wander," not "to break loose," and the second verb paraq means "to break," not "to shake off." The Samaritan has "When thou shalt be mighty, thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck." The Massoretic Text mistake may be due to the confounding of the Samaritan "a" with a "t", and the transposition of a Samaritan "d" and "b". The verb \'adhar, "to be strong," is rare and poetic, and so unlikely to suggest itself to reader or scribe. The renderings of the Septuagint and Peshitta indicate confusion. There are numerous cases, however, where the resembling letters are not in the Samaritan script, but sometimes in the square character and sometimes in the angular. Some characters resemble each other in both, but not in the Samaritan. The cases in which the resemblance is only in letters in the square script may all be ascribed to variation in the Massoretic Text. Cases involving the confusion of waw and yodh are instances in point. It may be said that every one of the instances of variation which depends on confusion of these letters is due to a blunder of a Jewish scribe, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,13);">Ge 25:13</a>, where the Jewish scribe has written nebhith instead of nebhdyoth (Nebaioth) as usual; 36:5, where the Jewish scribe has ye\'ish instead of ye\'ush (Jeush), as in the Qere. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,30);">Ge 46:30</a>, by writing re\'othi instead of ra\'ithi, the Jewish scribe in regard to the same letters has made a blunder which the Samaritan scribe has avoided. When d and r are confused, it must not be ascribed to the likeness in the square script, for those letters are alike in the angular also. As the square is admitted to be later than the date of the Samaritan script, these confusions point to a manuscript in angular. There are, however, confusions which apply only to letters alike in angular. Thus, binyamim, invariably in the Samaritan Pentateuch Benjamin, binyamin, is written Benjamin; also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,11);">Ex 1:11</a> pithon instead of pithom, but "m" and "n" are alike only in the script of the Siloam inscription. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,21);">De 12:21</a>, the Samaritan has leshakken, as the Massoretic Text has in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,21);">12:11</A>, whereas the Massoretic Text has lasum. A study of the alphabets on p. 2314 will show the close resemblance between waw (w) and kaph (k) in the Siloam script, as well as the likeness above mentioned between "m" and "n". This points to the fact that the manuscripts from which the Massoretic Text and the Samaritan were transcribed in some period of their history were written in angular of the type of the Siloam inscription, that is to say of the age of Hezekiah.<P>(b) Variations Due to Mistakes of Hearing:<P>The great mass of these are due to one of two sources, either on the one hand the insertion or omission of waw and yodh, so that the vowel is written plenum or the reverse, or, on the other hand, to the mistake of the gutturals. Of the former class of variations there are dozens in every chapter. The latter also is fairly frequent, and is due doubtless to the fact that in the time when the originals of the present manuscripts were transcribed the gutturals were not pronounced at all. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,36);">Ge 27:36</a> shows \'aleph (\') and he (h) interchanged, he (h) and cheth (ch) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,45);">Ge 41:45</a>, cheth (ch) for \'ayin (\') in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,7);">Ge 49:7</a>, and \'aleph (\') and \'ayin (\') in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,18);">Ge 23:18</a>, in many Samaritan manuscripts, but the result is meaningless. This inability to pronounce the gutturals points to a date considerably before the Arab domination. Possibly this avoidance of the gutturals became fashionable during the Roman rule, when the language of law was Latin, a language without gutturals. A parallel instance may be seen in Aquila, who does not transliterate any gutturals. This loss of the gutturals may be connected with the fact that in Assyrian \'aleph (\') is practically the only guttural. The colonists from Assyria might not unlikely be unable to pronounce the gutturals.<P>(c) Changes Due to Deficient Attention:<P>Another cause of variation is to be found in reader or scribe not attending sufficiently to the actual word or sentence seen or heard. This is manifested in putting for a word its equivalent. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,31);">Ge 26:31</a> the Samaritan has lere\'ehu, "to his friend," instead of as the Massoretic Text le\'achiw, "to his brother," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,10);">Ex 2:10</a> Samaritan has na\'ar for yeledh in Massoretic Text. In such cases it is impossible to determine which represents the original text. We may remark that the assumption of Gesenius and of such Jewish writers as Kohn that the Massoretic Text is always correct is due to mere prejudice. More important is the occasional interchange of YHWH and \'Elohim, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,4);">Ge 28:4</a>, where Samaritan has YHWH and the Massoretic Text \'Elohim, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,1);">Ge 7:1</a> where it has \'Elohim against YHWH in the Massoretic Text. This last instance is the more singular, in that in the 9th verse of the same chapter the Massoretic Text has \'Elohim and the Samaritan YHWH. Another class of instances which may be due to the same cause is the completion of a sentence by adding a clause or, it may be, dropping it from failure to observe it to be incomplete, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,45);">Ge 24:45</a>. If the Massoretic Text be the original text, the Samaritan adds the clause "a little water from thy pitcher"; if the Samaritan, then the Massoretic Text has dropped it.<P>(2) Intentional.<P>(a) Grammatical:<P>The variations from the Massoretic Text most frequently met with in reading the Samaritan Pentateuch are those necessary to conform the language to the rules of ordinary grammar. In this the Samaritan frequently coincides with the Qere of the Massoretic Text. The Kethibh of the Massoretic Text has no distinction in gender between hu\' in the 3rd personal pronoun singular<61>in both masculine and feminine it is hu\'. The Samaritan with the Qere corrects this to hi\'. So with na\'ar, "a youth"<22>this is common in the Kethibh, but in the Qere when a young woman is in question the feminine termination is added, and so the Samaritan writers also. It is a possible supposition that this characteristic of the Torah is late and due to blundering peculiar to the manuscript from which the Massoretes copied the Kethibh. That it is systematic is against its being due to blunder, and as the latest Hebrew books maintain distinction of gender, we must regard this as an evidence of antiquity. This is confirmed by another set of variations between the Samaritan and the Massoretic Text. There are, in the latter, traces of case-endings which have disappeared in later Hebrew. These are removed in the Samaritan. That case terminations have a tendency to disappear is to be seen in English and French The sign of the accusative, \'eth, frequently omitted in the Massoretic Text, is generally supplied in Samaritan. A short form of the demonstrative pronoun plural (\'el instead of \'ellah) is restricted to the Pentateuch and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,8);">1Ch 20:8</a>. The syntax of the cohortative is different in Samaritan from that in the Massoretic Hebrew. It is not to be assumed that the Jewish was the only correct or primitive use. There are cases where, with colloquial inexactitude, the Massoretic Text has joined a plural noun to a singular verb, and vice versa; these are corrected in Samaritan. Conjugations which in later Hebrew have a definite meaning in relation to the root, but are used in the Massoretic Text of the Torah in quite other senses, are brought in the Samaritan Pentateuch into harmony with later use. It ought in passing to be noted that these pentateuchal forms do not occur in the Prophets; even in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,15);">Jos 2:15</a> we have the feminine 3rd personal pronoun; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,3);">Jud 19:3</a> we have na\'arah.<P>(b) Logical:<P>Sometimes the context or the circumstances implied have led to a change on one side or another. This may involve only the change of a word, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,2);">Ge 2:2</a>, where the Samaritan has "sixth" instead of "seventh" (Massoretic Text), in this agreeing with the Septuagint and Peshitta, the Jewish scribe thinking the "sixth day" could only be reckoned ended when the "seventh\' had begun. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,8);">Ge 4:8</a>, after the clause, "And Cain talked with (said to) Abel his brother," the Samaritan, Septuagint and Peshitta add, "Let us go into the field." From the evidence of the VSS, from the natural meaning of the verb \'amar, "to say," not "to speak," from the natural meaning also of the preposition \'el, "to," not "with" (see Gesenius), it is clear that the Massoretic Text has dropped the clause and that the Samaritan represents the true text. If this is not the case, it is a case of logical completion on the part of the Samaritan. Another instance is the addition to each name in the genealogy in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'10-24\');">Ge 11:10-24</a> of the sum of the years of his life. In the case of the narrative of the plagues of Egypt a whole paragraph is added frequently. What has been commanded Moses and Aaron is repeated as history when they obey.<P>(c) Doctrinal:<P>There are cases in which the text so suits the special views of the Samaritans concerning the sanctity of Gerizim that alteration of the original in that direction may be supposed to be the likeliest explanation. Thus there is inserted at <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,6,7);">Ge 20:6,7</a> a passage from <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,2);">De 27:2</a> slightly modified: Gerizim being put for Ebal, the object of the addition being to give the consecration of Gerizim the sanction of the Torah. Kennicott, however, defends the authenticity of this passage as against the Massoretic Text. Insertion or omission appears to be the result of doctrinal predilection. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,4,5);">Nu 25:4,5</a> the Samaritan harmonizes the command of Yahweh with the action of Moses. The passage removed has a bloodthirsty Moloch-like look that might seem difficult to defend. On the other hand, the Jewish hatred of idolatry might express itself in the command to "take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the Lord against the sun," and so might be inserted. There are cases also where the language is altered for reasons of propriety. In these cases the Samaritan agrees with the Qere of the Massoretic Text.<P>These variations are of unequal value as evidences of the relative date of the Samaritan recension of the Pentateuch. The intentional are for this purpose of little value; they are evidence of the views prevalent in the northern and southern districts of Palestine respectively. Only visual blunders are of real importance, and they point to a date about the days of Hezekiah as the time at which the two recensions began to diverge. One thing is obvious, that the Samaritan, at least as often as the Massoretic Text, represents the primitive text.<P>2. Relation of Samaritan Recension to Septuagint:<P>(1) Statement of Hypotheses.<P>The frequency with which the points in which the Samaritan Pentateuch differs from the Massoretic Text agree with those in which the Septuagint also differs has exercised scholars. Castelli asserts that there are a thousand such instances. It may be noted that in one instance, at any rate, a passage in which the Samaritan and the Septuagint agree against the Massoretic Text has the support of the New Testament. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,17);">Ga 3:17</a>, the apostle Paul, following the Samaritan and Septuagint against the Massoretic Text, makes the "430 years" which terminated with the exodus begin with Abraham. As a rule the attention of Biblical scholars has been so directed to the resemblances between the Samaritan and the Septuagint that they have neglected the more numerous points of difference. So impressed have scholars been, especially when Jews, by these resemblances that they have assumed that the one was dependent on the other. Frankel has maintained that the Samaritan was translated from the Septuagint. Against this is the fact that in all their insulting remarks against them the Talmudists never assert that the "Cuthaeans" (Samaritans) got their Torah from the Greeks. Further, even if they only got the Law through Manasseh, the son-in-law of Sanballat, and even if he lived in the time of Alexander the Great, yet this was nearly half a century before the earliest date of the Septuagint. Again, while there are many evidences in the Septuagint that it has been translated from Hebrew, there are none in the Samaritan that it has been translated from Greek The converse hypothesis is maintained by Dr. Kohn with all the emphasis of extended type. His hypothesis is that before the Septuagint was thought of a Greek translation was made from a Samaritan copy of the Law for the benefit of Samaritans resident in Egypt. The Jews made use of this at first, but when they found it wrong in many points, they purposed a new translation, but were so much influenced by that to which they were accustomed that it was only an improved edition of the Samaritan which resulted. But it is improbable that the Samaritans, who were few and who had comparatively little intercourse with Egypt, should precede the more numerous Jews with their huge colonies in Egypt, in making a Greek translation. It is further against the Jewish tradition as preserved to us by Josephus. It is against the Samaritan tradition as learned by the present writer from the Samaritan high priest. According to him, the Samaritans had no independent translation, beyond the fact that five of the Septuagint were Samaritan. Had there been any excuse for asserting that the Samaritans were the first translators, that would not have disappeared from their traditions.<P>(2) Review of These Hypotheses.<P>The above unsatisfactory explanations result from deficient observation and unwarranted assumption. That there are many cases where the Samaritan variations from the Massoretic Text are identical with those of the Septuagint is indubitable. It has, however, not been observed by those Jewish scholars that the cases in which the Samaritan alone or the Septuagint alone (one or the other) agrees with the Massoretic Text against the other, are equally numerous. Besides, there are not a few cases in which all three differ. It ought to be observed that the cases in which the Septuagint differs from the Massoretic Text are much more numerous than those in which the Samaritan differs from it. One has only to compare the Samaritan, Septuagint and Massoretic Text of any half a dozen consecutive chapters in the Pentateuch to prove this. Thus neither is dependent on the others. Further, there is the unwarranted assumption that the Massoretic Text represents the primitive text of the Law. If the Massoretic Text is compared with the VSS, it is found that the Septuagint, despite the misdirected efforts of Origen to harmonize it to the Palestinian text, differs in very many cases from the Massoretic Text. Theodotion is nearer, but still differs in not a few cases. Jerome is nearer still, though even the text behind the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is not identical with the Massoretic Text. It follows that the Massoretic Text is the result of a process which stopped somewhere about the end of the 5th century AD. The origin of the Massoretic Text appears to have been somewhat the result of accident. A manuscript which had acquired a special sanctity as belonging to a famous rabbi is copied with fastidious accuracy, so that even its blunders are perpetuated. This supplies the Kethibh. Corrections are made from other manuscripts, and these form the Qere. If our hypothesis as to the age of the Nablus roll is correct, it is older than the Massoretic Text by more than half a millennium, and the manuscript from which the Septuagint was translated was nearly a couple of centuries older still. So far then from its being a reasonable assumption that the Septuagint and Samaritan differ from the Massoretic Text only by blundering or willful corruption on the part of the former, the converse is at least as probable. The conclusion then to which we are led is that of Kennicott (State of Hebrew Text Dissertation, II, 164) that the Samaritan and Septuagint being independent, "each copy is invaluable<6C>each copy demands our pious veneration and attentive study." It further ought to be observed that though Dr. Kohn points to certain cases where the difference between the Massoretic Text and the Septuagint is due to confusion of letters only possible in Samaritan character, this does not prove the Septuagint to have been translated from a Samaritan MS, but that the manuscripts of the Massoretic Text used by the Septuagint were written in that script. Kohn also exhibits the relation of the Samaritan to the Peshitta. While the Peshitta sometimes agrees with the Samaritan where it differs from the Massoretic Text, more frequently it supports the Massoretic Text against the Samaritan.<P>IV. Bearing on the Pentateuchal Question.<P>Josephus (Ant., XI, viii, 2) makes Sanballat contemporary with Alexander the Great, and states that his son-in-law Manasseh came to Samaria and became the high priest. Although it is not said by Josephus, it is assumed by critics that he brought the completed Torah with him. This Manasseh is according to Josephus the grandson of Eliashib the high priest, the contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah, and therefore contemporary with Artaxerxes Longimanus. Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,28);">13:28</a>) mentions, without naming him, a grandson of Eliashib, who was son-in-law of Sanballat, whom he chased from him. It is clear that Josephus had dropped a century out of his history, and that the migration of Manasseh is to be placed not circa 335 BC, but circa 435 BC. Ezra is reputed to be, if not the author of the Priestly Code in the Pentateuch, at all events its introducer to the Palestinians, and to have edited the whole, so that it assumed the form in which we now have it. But he was the contemporary of Manasseh, and had been, by his denunciation of foreign marriages, the cause of the banishment of Manasseh and his friends. Is it probable that he, Manasseh, would receive as Mosaic the enactments of Ezra, or convey them to Samaria? The date of the introduction of the Priestly Code (P), the latest portion of the Law, must accordingly be put considerably earlier than it is placed at present. We have seen that there are visual blunders that can be explained only on the assumption that the manuscript from which the mother Samaritan roll was copied was written in some variety of angular script. We have seen, further, that the peculiarities suit those of the Siloam inscription executed in the reign of Hezekiah, therefore approximately contemporary with the priest sent by Esarhaddon to Samaria to teach the people "the manner of the God of the land." As Amos and Hosea manifest a knowledge of the whole Pentateuch before the captivity, it would seem that this "Book of the Law" that was "read (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,5);">Am 4:5</a>, the Septuagint) without," which would be the source from which the priest sent from Assyria taught as above "the manner of the God of the land," would contain all the portions<6E>J, E, D, and P<>of the Law. If so, it did not contain the Book of Josh; notwithstanding the honor they give the conqueror of Canaan, the Samaritans have not retained the book which relates his exploits. This is confirmed by the fact that the archaisms in the Massoretic Text of the Pentateuch are not found in Josh. It is singular, if the Prophets were before the Law, that in the Law there should be archaisms which are not found in the Prophets. From the way the divine names are interchanged, as we saw, sometimes \'Elohim in the Samaritan represents YHWH in the Massoretic Text, sometimes vice versa, it becomes obviously impossible to lay any stress on this. This conclusion is confirmed by the yet greater frequency with which this interchange occurs in the Septuagint. The result of investigation of the Samaritan Pentateuch is to throw very considerable doubt on the validity of the critical opinions as to the date, origin and structure of the Pentateuch<P>V. Targums and Chronicle.<P>As above noted, there are two Targums or interpretations of the Samaritan Pentateuch, an Aramaic and an Arabic. The Aramaic is a dialect related to the Western Aramaic, in which the Jewish Targums were written, sometimes called Chaldee. It has in it many strange words, some of which may be due to the language of the Assyrian colonists, but many are the result of blunders of copyists ignorant of the language. It is pretty close to the original and is little given to paraphrase. Much the same may be said of the Arabic Targum. It is usually attributed to Abu Said of the 13th century, but according to Dr. Cowley only revised by him from the Targum of Abulhassan of the 11th century. There is reference occasionally in the Fathers to a Samaritikon which has been taken to mean a Greek version. No indubitable quotations from it survive<76>what seem to be so being really translations of the text of the Samaritan recension. There is in Arabic a wordy chronicle called "The Book of Joshua." It has been edited by Juynboll. It may be dated in the 13th century. More recently a "Book of Joshua" in Hebrew and written in Samaritan characters was alleged to be discovered. It is, however, a manifest forgery; the characters in which it is written are very late. It is partly borrowed rom the canonical Joshua, and partly from the older Samaritan Book of Joshua with fabulous additions. The Chronicle of Abulfatach is a tolerably accurate account of the history of the Samaritans after Alexander the Great to the 4th century AD.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The text in the Samaritan script is found in the polyglots<74>Paris and London. Walton\'s text in the London Polyglot is transcribed in square characters by Blayney, Oxford, 1790. The English works of importance of recent times are Mills, Nablus and the Samaritans, London, 1864; Nutt, Fragments of a Samaritan Targum, London, 1874; Montgomery, The Samaritans, Philadelphia, 1907 (this has a very full bibliography which includes articles in periodicals); Iverach Munro. The Samaritan Pentateuch and Modern Criticism,1911,London. In Germany, Gesenius\' dissertation, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine, etc., Jena,1815,has not quite lost its value; Kohn, De Pentateucho Samaritano, Leipzig, 1865; Petermann, Versuch einer hebr. Formenlehre nach der Aussprache der heutigen Samaritaner, Leipzig, 1868. There are besides articles on this in the various Biblical Dictionaries and Encyclodedias. In the numerous religious and theological periodicals there have been articles on the Samaritan Pentateuch of varying worth. The Aramaic Targum has been transcribed in square characters and edited by Brull (Frankfort, 1875).``173';
</script>
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink