St Paul's Conversion and its Consequences

Conversion

Recognition Appearances

Arabia

Damascus

Jerusalem

The Missing Years

By contrast with Luke's three circumstantial accounts of Paul's conversion,1 the Apostle himself is dismayingly discreet. There are only glancing allusions to the most shattering experience of his life.2 The earliest appear in 1 Corinthians. The first is an indignant rhetorical question, 'Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?' (1 Cor. 9:1), whereas the second presents Paul as a witness of the resurrection, 'Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me' (1 Cor. 15:8). Galatians uses a different language in speaking of the event as 'a revelation of Jesus Christ' (Gal. 1:12) and 'God was pleased... to reveal his Son to me' (Gal. 1:16). The connotation of communicated knowledge is reinforced by the fact that, strictly speaking, what is revealed in v. 12 is the 'good news', whereas the purpose of the revelation in v. 16 is 'to preach good news'. In Paul's case conversion and call to ministry are inseparable.

This minimal list of allusions, on which all agree, is greatly expanded by some authors. Seyoon Kim, for example, approvingly reports that various scholars have found formal references to the Apostle's conversion (in Rom. 10:2-4; 1 Cor. 9:16-17; 2 Cor. 3:16; 4:6; 5:16; Phil. 3:4-12; Eph. 3:1-13; Col. 1:23-9; in the opening verses of Rom., 1-2 Cor., Gal., Eph., and Col.; and in all instances of the formula 'the grace given to me' Rom. 12:3; 15:15; 1 Cor. 1:4; 3:10; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 3:2,7; Col. 1:25).3 Some of these are manifestly irrelevant; the value of others will be tested in the contexts in which they are deemed to contribute.

This is very little. The effect has been that elements from Acts are either consciously invoked to re-create Paul's conversion, or unconsciously permitted to influence our understanding of this episode. In an attempt to avoid this danger here no attempt will be made to account for the material provided by Luke.

______

1 Acts 9:1-19; 22:4-16; 26:9-18. From a vast literature, see Stanley (1953), 315-38; Hedrick (1981), 415-32. The most detailed tradition history of the three accounts is that given by Boismard and Lamouille (1990), 2. 120 ff., 182 ff, 341 ff., 372 ff. In arguing that Luke knew Gal. 1:13-25 (p. 185), they reinforce the position of C. Masson (1962), 161-6.

2 Since Paul in his own mind did not cease to be a Jew, and since at this point Judaeo-Christianity was a party within Judaism, some scholars have pedantically denied that Paul was converted, e.g. Stendahl (1977), 7-23; Betz (1979), 64; Georgi (1991), 19. On the contrary, given the radical shift in his perception of God and of the divine plan of salvation implicit in his acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah and the dramatic change in his life-style which ensued, the term is perfectly justified; see Segal (1990). 3 (1984), 3-31.

{page 72}

Conversion

The two allusions In 1 Corinthians betray that Paul saw his conversion in a very specific context, 1 Corinthians 9:2 has very close parallels in Mary Magdalene's experience, 'She saw Jesus' (John 20:14), and announced to the disciples, 'I have seen the Lord' (John 20:18). They in turn proclaimed, 'We have seen the Lord' (John 20:25). The use of the verb 'to see' in immediately post-paschal contexts is well attested.4 The hint that Paul understood his conversion as a post-paschal apparition is confirmed by 1 Corinthians 15:8 in which he lists himself as the last of those privileged to have seen the Risen Lord.

Recognition Appearances

The post-paschal apparition stories exhibit an extraordinary variety. It is imperative, therefore, to reduce them to some sort of order. Various classifications have been proposed, but the most helpful is that of M. Albertz, who distinguishes between 'private' and 'apostolic' Christophanies.5 The terminology is unfortunate because it suggests that the basis is the type of the recipient. In fact, Albertz' concern is to separate appearances which contain a commission from those which do not. Hence, it is perhaps preferable to speak of 'recognition appearances' (Matt. 28:9- 10; Luke 24:13-42; John 20:11-16,24-9) and 'mission appearances' (Matt. 28:16-20; John 20:19-23). The former, in which disciples recognize that the Jesus who died is now alive, are at least logically prior to the latter, as Paul's conversion was to his missionary call.

'Recognition appearances' vary significantly in detail but all the stories reflect the same basic pattern. This may be artificial to the extent that it is schematic, but its spread and consistency indicate that it certainly reflects the conversion experience of many in the early church. The pattern consists of four elements in the following order:

(1) The disciples acknowledge that the death of Jesus is the end.

Mary weeps at the tomb (John 20:11). Cleopas confesses deep disappointment (Luke 24:21). Disciples hide in fear (John 20:19). Thomas mocks (John 20:25).

(2) Jesus intervenes.

He calls Mary (John 20:16). He joins Cleopas (Luke 24:15). He appears in the midst of the disciples (John 20:19). Jesus came (John 20:26).

(3) Jesus offers a sign of his identity.

He shows his hands and side (John 20:20). He shows his hands and feet (Luke 24:40). He breaks bread (Luke 24:30). He offers his hands and side (John 20:27).

______

4 Matt. 28:10,17; Luke 24:37, 39; John 20:20, 27, 29; Acts 1:9.

5 (1922), 259-69.

{page 73}

(4) Jesus is recognized.

They worshipped him (Matt. 28:9). Mary says 'Rabboni' (John 20:16). Their eyes were opened and they recognized him (Luke 24:31). They saw the Lord (John 20:20). 'My Lord and my God!' (John 20:28).

These narratives flatly contradict the common assumption that the disciples were so enthusiastically convinced of Jesus' continuing life that they invented the resurrection to confess their belief. On the contrary, the death of Jesus dashed all their hopes. They had nothing to look forward to; they expected nothing. It took an initiative of Jesus to lift them out of their pessimistic lethargy. A sign of identity was required by the difference between the earthly and resurrection body (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51-3; John 20:19). Yet it was not a proof, because acknowledgement of the risen Jesus as the one who died was not unanimous (Luke 24:41; Matt. 28:17).

This grid provides the framework in which, according to Paul, his conversion should be analysed.

A Pharisee's Knowledge of Jesus

Before we do so, however, it is important to try to determine what Paul knew about Jesus of Nazareth, the one whom he was about to encounter. Inevitably this controlled and channelled his perception. That he did know something is certain, for he later confessed, 'we have known Christ in a fleshly way' (2 Cor. 5:16).6 At one time, manifestly prior to his conversion, he thought about Jesus in a way of which he was later ashamed.

What sort of knowledge of Jesus might a first-century Jew have had, and particularly a Pharisee? There are two approaches to an answer, what was actually said and what might be deduced.

Josephus, the first-century Palestine-based Jewish historian who claimed to be a Pharisee, mentions Jesus twice.7 The authenticity of one reference is accepted by all, whereas the genuineness of the other is bitterly disputed. The former reads,

This younger Ananus took the highpriesthood. He was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed. When, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had

______

6 Both Pauline usage and the context indicate that kata sarka must be understood as an adverb. Were it an adjective it would have occupied a different place in the sentence (cf. Rom. 4:1; 9:3; 1 Cor. 1:26; 10:18).

7 Recent discussions, with full bibliographies, which argue in favour of the positions adopted here are Schürer (1973-87), 1. 428-41, and Meier (1990).

______

{page 74}

now a proper opportunity to exercise his authority. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

(AJ 20. 199-200; trans. Whiston and Margoliouth)

The high priest filled the power vacuum between two Roman procurators by asserting his authority in a particularly brutal way. Josephus' interest in the episode was that it led to the deposition of Ananus (AJ 20. 203). James was important merely as the only identified victim. The name 'James' however, was so common that Josephus was forced to specify him by reference to his better-known brother Jesus, whose name was also so widespread that it too demanded a qualifier. Josephus' choice of'Christ', rather than 'of Nazareth' indicates that statements about Jesus' role as Messiah enjoyed sufficiently wide circulation to be understandable even among those who rejected it.

The second reference in Josephus is known as the Testimonium Flavianum, and opinions of its authenticity range from complete acceptance to flat rejection. Opposed to such extremes is an intermediate position, which I am convinced is correct; it maintains that a Christian editor added to (and perhaps deleted from) a note on Jesus composed by Josephus.

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that love him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again at the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. (AJ 18. 63-4; trans. Whiston and Margoliouth)

The italicized portions represent the Christian additions to Josephus' text, and the arguments are obvious from their content. Without them we have a bland report written in language which may be deliberately ambiguous. Even when interpreted in the most positive way, the Christology is so low that it certainly cannot be attributed to a follower of Jesus of the patristic or medieval period. The meaning of the attribute 'wise man' is furnished by two phrases expressing what he did in word and deed. His works are qualified as paradoxa; the basic meaning of this adjective is 'contrary to expectation' whence 'incredible', which Josephus may have intended positively ('exceptional')8 or negatively ('unbelievable'). A slight clue to his intention emerges in what he says of Jesus' teaching.

______

8 This appears to be the force of the adjective in AJ 9. 182; 12. 63.

{page 75}

Instead of summarizing its content he merely notes the character of the audience.

There are two possible versions. According to the received text (quoted above) Jesus' hearers were seekers after truth. This could be to condemn with faint praise, because Josephus offers no guarantee that they were not misled. But there is something that does not ring quite true here. Josephus goes on to say that Jesus won a considerable number of adherents. If all were seekers after truth, this could leave the impression that what Jesus preached was in fact the truth. Is this likely to stem from Josephus? It harmonizes better with the concerns of the Christian interpolator. What, then, might Josephus have written?

A plausible suggestion involves the change of only one letter, and offers a more fitting context for hedone, which normally connotes physical pleasure rather than intellectual gratification. The corrected text reads didaskalos anthropon ton hedone ta aethe (in place of talethe )dexomendn 'a teacher of those with an appetite for novelties'.9 This rendering has a certain intrinsic probability. Even in a writer as sloppy as Josephus, one would expect at least a hint of why some leading Jews delated Jesus to Pontius Pilate.

Jesus merited a place in the history of Josephus merely because, against all expectations, he acquired a following which survived him. When the assertion that 'He won over many Jews and Gentiles' is compared with the Gospels, it is manifest that Josephus is reading back into the lifetime of Jesus what was true only much later in the first century. Jesus in fact converted few Jews and fewer Gentiles. Only in the post-paschal period did they grow into 'a tribe of Christians'. This name should be translated 'Messianists' in order to bring out its resonance for anyone with a Jewish upbringing. Josephus, it will be recalled, was aware that Jesus' followers thought of him as the Messiah (AJ 20.200).

Equally, it was the existence of Christians (though they were not yet known as such; Acts 11:26) which directed Paul's attention to Jesus. It is inconceivable that he should have persecuted Christians without learning something about the founder of the movement. Paul the Pharisee certainly was in a position to discover as much as Josephus did. Thus we can safely assume that Paul knew (1) that Jesus had been a teacher to whom wonders were ascribed; (2) that he had been crucified under Pontius Pilate as the result of Jewish charges; and (3) that his followers thought of him as the Messiah. It is unlikely, however, that he would have been content with such bare bones. Pharisaic interests would have driven him to flesh them out.

Given their concern to transform the Jewish people through more exact instruction in the written and oral Law, the Pharisees would have been extremely sensitive to the fact that Jesus had disciples whom he taught (John 7:15). Any success by other teachers threatened their hoped-for monopoly. The natural response would have been to challenge what Jesus was saying, particularly in areas where they sensed vulnerability.

______

9 Or 'those who accept the abnormal with delight'. This emendation has no textual support, but then neither does any MS of the Antiquities lack the Christian interpolations.

{page 76}

The touchstone of Jewish observance has always been the sabbath, and there can be little doubt that the complexity of Pharisaic legislation which culminated in the 39 types of work forbidden on the sabbath had already begun in the time of Jesus (m. Sab. 7.2). Thus it is not surprising that the Gospels record a number of controversies in which Pharisees challenge Jesus on what is permissible on the sabbath (Mk 2:23-8; 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11; 14:1-6; John 9:1-40). The basis of their objection to his healings was that illnesses which he treated were not life-threatening; they could have been deferred for a day. Jesus, on the contrary, saw his cures as a matter of life and death. By his action and response precisely on God's day, the sabbath, he was criticizing current Jewish halakha in order to emphasize that God's love expressed in healing power was available at each and every moment, and not merely when permitted by the Law. Why should a sick person have to wait for relief when it was available now? Jesus' attitude was less a repudiation of the sabbath than an affirmation of the imminence of the kingdom of God.10

Presumably the Pharisaic version of the results of such encounters differed from that of Jesus' followers. His attitude of unperturbed authority, however, would have hinted at an attitude towards the Law embodying a personal claim so extravagant as to make even closer attention to his teaching imperative.

Through infiltration or, less dramatically, through questioning of verbosely enthusiastic supporters, Pharisees could easily have come to learn that Jesus' sabbath actions were confirmed and reinforced by his relativization of the Law. Even the simplest of his followers must have realized the implications of assertions such as 'It was said to those of old [in the Law] ... but I say to you ...' (Matt. 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43),11 particularly when accompanied by a claim that Jesus was the touchstone of salvation (Matt. 10:32-33).12 Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah empowered to articulate God's will; the Law was no longer the sole or final authority.

Finally, there was one aspect of the gossip about Jesus which would have been of particular interest to Pharisees. In opposition to the Sadducees who denied any afterlife,13 the Pharisees believed in resurrection of the body.14

10 B. Schaller, 'Jesus and the Sabbath'; a lecture delivered at the ficole Biblique on 20 December 1991.

11 See in particular Kasemann (1964), 37-8. His acceptance of only three antitheses (Matt. 5:21, 27> 33)as authentic rests on the arguments of Bultmann (1963), 134-6, which have been refuted by Jeremias (1971), 251-3.

12 The authenticity of this saying is confirmed by its dilution in Luke 12:8-9 by the introduction of two intermediaries (the Son of Man and angels). The criterion of dissimilarity could hardly be more perfectly verified; against Perrin (1976), 185-91.

13 Acts 23:8;Josephus, JW 2. 165.

14 Acts 23:6-8; Josephus, JW 2. 163; 3. 374; see Cavallin (1974), 171-92.

{page 77}

Fundamental to the preaching of the first Christians was the assertion that God had raised Jesus from the dead; it appears in the earliest formulation of the faith of the church (1 Cor. 15:3-5). The resurrection was the great sign which validated the mission of Jesus and guaranteed his teaching. No Christian could avoid speaking of it and, once heard, it would rankle in the memory of a Pharisee.

While there may be some hesitancy in determining what Paul knew of Jesus while still a Pharisee, there can be no doubt as to what he thought of Christian claims. To his way of thinking it was ridiculous to maintain that God had intervened to raise from the dead a false teacher whose blasphemous claim to be the Messiah went hand in hand with deliberate subversion of the authority of the Law. It now becomes clearer why Paul tried to turn Christians from their beliefs. They had been disastrously misled.

Recognizing the Risen Lord

Given this attitude, it is certain that Paul was in no way disposed to expect anything to happen en route to Damascus. His reaction paralleled the initial response of Jesus' followers for whom his crucifixion was the end of hope. Jesus, Paul was convinced, had died a fitting death, and all that remained was the return of his supporters to the fold of authentic Judaism.

Paul explicitly reports that Jesus took the initiative in the encounter; there had been no preparation on his part. The most important passage is in his addition to the earliest creed,15 which needs to be looked at closely. The ambiguity of eschaton deponton hosperei to ektromati ophthe kamoi (1 Cor. 15:8) is brought out by the variety of translations, e.g. 'Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me' (NRSV); 'Last of all he was seen by me, as one born out of the normal course' (NAB). There is a significant difference between 'he appeared to' and 'he was seen by'. The latter takes ophthe as passive voice, whereas the former treats it as middle voice, 'he showed himself (cf. John 21:1).

Which is correct? The active meaning is demanded by Acts 26:16, and strongly recommended by LXX usage, e.g. ophthe kyrios to Abram (Gen 12:7 = Acts 7:2), which must be translated 'he showed himself to Abram' because it renders wayyera' Yahweh 'el Abram, where the particle of motion or direction 'el unambiguously indicates the active agent. Philo's comment is very apposite,

God, by reason of his love for humanity, did not reject the soul which came to him, but went forward to meet it, and showed to it his own nature as far as it was possible that he was looking at it could see it. For which reason it is said not that 'the wise man saw God' but that 'God appeared to the wise man'. (De Abrahamo 79-80; trans. Yonge).16

15 See my (19816), 582-9.

16 See Pelletier (1970).

{page 78}

In the case of Paul the active meaning is made certain by other references in which the stress on the initiative of God/Christ is unequivocal. 'He was pleased ... to reveal his son to me' (Gal. 1:16). 'I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus' (Phil. 3:12). The weight of these texts is not countered by the exceptional 'Did I not see the Lord?' (1 Cor. 9:1), which simply reflects the natural shift towards the graphic which is also found in the gospels, where in a secondary phase of the tradition Jesus is 'seen' by those whom he 'met' or 'stood among' or 'journeyed with'.17

The most difficult element of the recognition appearance grid to account for is the sign of identity because, in opposition to Jesus' disciples, Paul had not met Jesus during his earthly ministry. By definition, therefore, Paul could not have recognized Jesus on the same basis as those who had come with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. We can be sure, however, that Paul had a mental image of Jesus. Many create a portrait in their minds of authors whose books they happen to be reading. If simple interest can produce such images, then the intense anger which Paul directed against the one who had led Jews astray was capable of the same effect.18 The stress under which Paul was operating would have interfered with his rationality and would have heightened his susceptibility to anyone or anything associated with the focus of his emotion.19 What actually happened must remain a mystery unless we are prepared to invoke the vivid details of Luke's accounts, in each of which, incidentally, Jesus has to identify himself (Acts 9:5; 22:8; 26:15). In any event, the reality and the mental image fused and Paul's world was turned upside down.

Paul now knew with the inescapable conviction of direct experience that the Jesus who had been crucified under Pontius Pilate was alive.20 The resurrection which he had contemptuously dismissed was a fact, as undeniable as his own reality. He knew that Jesus now existed on another plane. This recognition is all that was necessary to his conversion, because it completely transformed his value system.

If one of the resonances that the name of Jesus set up in his Pharisaic mind was true (i.e. resurrection), then the others automatically had to be viewed in a completely different perspective. No longer were they the blasphemous pretensions of a madman and his dupes, but utter truth.

______

17 Active use of the verb 'to see': Matt. 28:10,17; Luke 24:37,39; John 20:14,18,20,25,27,29; Acts 1:9. Physical encounters: Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:15, 36; John 20:19,26; Acts 1:3.

18 Knox (1950), 126, who is one of the few to raise the identification question, answers it thus, 'Christ had begun to make himself known to Paul-perhaps against the latter's will-as the Spirit of the persecuted koinonia before he made himself known in the visual experience in which Paul's conversion culminated.'

19 This point is developed by Gager (1981), 699-700.

20 Kim (1984), 7, 108, 223-7, deduces from 2 Cor. 4:6 (which in fact is neither explicitly nor exclusively concerned with Paul's conversion) that the risen Christ appeared in divine glory, i.e. 'he saw him exalted by God and enthroned at his right hand' as the physical embodiment of divinity. See the understated critique by Dunn (1987), 256-62.

{page 79}

Jesus, therefore, must be precisely what he implicitly, and his disciples explicitly, claimed he was, namely, the Messiah. Equally the attitude of Jesus towards the Law must be correct; the Law was not the definitive expression of God's will. What the Law laid down as the prerequisites of salvation had no further validity. As grace had been made available to Paul, despite his efforts to thwart the divine plan of salvation as revealed in Jesus, so it could be made accessible to those whom the Law had excluded.

Only when it is conceded that Paul's conversion consisted essentially in the revaluation of ideas which he already possessed does it become possible to understand how he can write, 'For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel preached by me is not according to man, for I did not receive it from man nor was I taught it but [it came] through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12; cf. 1:1). Sandnes is typical of many commentators in taking this statement at face value; he concludes, 'His gospel was not dependent on information given him by others. He has received it direct from Jesus in a revelation.'21 In reality the text embodies a slight deviation from the absolute truth which is excused by the polemic context. No one convinced of the truth of Jesus had taught Paul about Christ or Christianity. He had never studied them in the way that he had applied himself to understanding the Law.

None the less, as 2 Corinthians 5:16 shows, he had assembled information about the Jesus movement. His point, therefore, can only be that as gospel such concepts were not as he had acquired them. He had not heard of Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and Messiah. He had not been taught that the Law was merely a source from which one could choose to draw or not.

His encounter with Christ revealed the truth of what he had once taken as falsehood by forcing a new assessment of what became the Christological and soteriological poles of his gospel.22 Christ was the new Adam, the embodiment of authentic humanity. The Law was no longer an obstacle to the salvation of Gentiles; they could be saved without becoming Jews.

Apostle to the Gentiles

According to Paul, his conversion was for the Gentiles, 'But when he who had set me apart from my mother's womb, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his son to me, in order that I might preach him among the nations' (Gal. 1:15-16).23 The opening words are immediately evocative of two

______

21 (1991). 53.

22 Against Betz (1979), 64, who maintains that a verbal revelation is implied. According to the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, 'But if you [Simon, a surrogate for Paul] were visited by him [Christ] for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle' (17.19.4). The point is to contrast the brevity of Paul's experience with the year-long instruction given by the Risen Lord to his authentic disciples; see Lüdemann (1989), 187.

23 In addition to the commentaries, see Denis (1957).

{page 80}

celebrated Old Testament vocations, the Isaian Servant of Yahweh and the prophet Jeremiah. The version cited is that of the LXX which Paul knew, and the underlined words are those he used in narrating his own vocation. 'From my mother's womb he called my name ... He said to me... I will give you as a light to the nations' (Isa. 49:1,6). 'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you came forth from [your] mother I hallowed you. I appointed you a prophet for [the] nations' (Jer. 1:5).

The repetition of the three key terms cannot be coincidental. As in the case of his two great predecessors, Paul saw his conversion as the working out of a plan devised much earlier by God. The goal of that plan was the extension of God's grace to the Gentiles. Thus he was called precisely in order to bring the good news to those who did not belong to the Jewish people. Both Galatians 1:11-12 and 1:15-16 unambiguously indicate that Paul's mission to the Gentiles was not a late development, nor a mere extension of a presumed outreach of Hellenists in Jerusalem. It should be unnecessary to stress this obvious point, but it has in fact been challenged.

J. P. Bercovitz has argued that when Paul employs kalein absolutely it always means an efficacious call to faith. In consequence, he maintains, the aorist participle kalesas in Galatians 1:15 should be understood as a parenthetical clause referring to Paul's conversion to Christianity, which is prior to the apostolic commissioning mentioned in the main clause.24 Were Bercovitz concerned to highlight a mere logical priority, one might agree, but he stresses a temporal gap between conversion and commission. Paul, he insists, was already a believer when Jesus appeared to him. This would imply, however, that the Apostle had been instructed in Christianity, which is precisely what he formally denies in Galatians 1:11-12.25 Moreover, Paul uses kalein with explicit reference to his commission. More significant than 1 Corinthians 1:1 is Romans 1:1, where he combines the two verbs of Galatians 1:15, 'Paul a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God'.

F. Watson contends that Paul initially belonged to a Judaeo-Christian group which he perceived as a reform movement within Judaism. His mission was to make mediocre Jews better. That ambition met with no response. It was then, Watson maintains, that Paul, who could not live with failure, decided to turn to the Gentiles. In order to make the gospel more attractive to them he repudiated portions of the Law, and thereby transformed Christianity into a sect bitterly opposed to the synagogue.26

Not only does this hypothesis lack any textual foundation but it is flatly contradicted by Paul himself who tells us that his first act after his conversion was to 'go away into Arabia' (Gal. 1:17).

______

24 (1985), 28-37.

25 So rightly Knox (1987).

26 (1986), 28-38.

{page 81}

Arabia

Where was Arabia? Strabo gives the geographers' answer, 'Arabia Felix is bounded by the whole extent of the Arabian Gulf [=Red Sea] and the Persian Gulf.'27 The extent of this huge land mass underlines the need for a more tightly focused question. What would the term 'Arabia' have suggested to a Jew who lived in first-century Judaea?

Location and Mission

Josephus provides a very clear answer. Arabia could be seen to the east from the tower Psephinus in Jerusalem.28 Thus, it lay on the desert side of the three easternmost cities of the Decapolis, Damascus, Raphana, and Philadelphia.29 More specifically, it was contiguous to Herodian territory running along the southern border of the Roman province of Syria,30 and south and east of the great fortress Machaerus.31 Petra was the royal seat of Arabia.32 Whence the name 'Arabia Petrea',33 or 'Arabia belonging to Petra'.34 This mountain-encircled city, however, was the capital and chief city of the Nabataeans.35 Whence another name 'Arabia of the Nabataeans'.36

Paul, therefore, went into Nabataean territory,37 which at that period ranged from the Hauran down through Moab and Edom and expanded on both sides of the Gulf of Aqaba.38 What was his purpose? Some have thought that he sought a quiet place for reflection and study.39 The Law had ceased to be the centripetal force which held the different facets of his life together. That power was now exercised by the Risen Lord and, it is suggested, he needed time and tran-quility in order to assimilate a change of such magnitude.

Plausible as this suggestion is, it does not adequately account for what happened subsequently. Paul must have been doing something to draw attention to himself and arouse the ire of the Nabataeans because he had to return to Damascus, and even three years later the Nabataean authorities still

______

28 JW 5.159-60.

27 Geography 2. 5. 32.

29 Pliny, NH 5. 16. 74. Cf. Strabo, Geography 16. 2. 20.

31 JW 3. 172. 33 AJ 18:109.

30 AJ 16. 347.

32 JW 1. 125; cf. 1. 159, 267; 4. 454.

34 Dio Cassius, History 68. 14. 5.

35 Strabo, Geography 16. 4. 21.

36 Ibid. 17. 1. 21. Similarly Plutarch, Anthony 36. 2.

37 2 Cor. 11:32-3, in addition to the texts of Pliny and Strabo cited in n. 29, excludes the hypothesis of Bietenhard (1977), 255, that Paul preached in the Decapolis, possibly at Pella.

38 The most detailed ancient treatment of the life-style of the Nabataeans is that of Strabo, Geography 16. 4. 26. The classic study remains that of Starcky (1966). Supplementary information on the period 30 bc-ad 70 is provided by Negev (1977). See also Graf (1992).

39 Most recently Baslez (1991), 101; Longenecker (1990), 34; N. Taylor (1993), 73, but without suggesting, as Lightfoot (1910), 87-90, did on the basis of Gal. 4:25, that Arabia was Sinai (Gal. 4:25).

{page 82}

wanted to arrest him (Gal. 1:17; 2 Cor. 11:32-3). The only explanation is that Paul was trying to make converts.40 This first act subsequent to his conversion confirms his understanding of his conversion as a commission to preach the gospel among pagans.41

Nabataeans and Jews

In order to understand the violence of the Nabataean reaction, the salient points of their stormy relations with the Jews must be recalled. Things started well, when Antipater of Idumea sealed an alliance between Hyrcanus II and Aretas III by marrying Kypros, who came from an eminent Nabataean family and later became the mother of Herod the Great.42 Against his will, in 32-31 bc, the latter was forced into a war with the Nabataeans, which he won after suffering heavy losses.43 He again defeated them c. 9 bc.44 It is not at all surprising, therefore, that the Nabataeans enthusiastically provided auxiliaries to aid P. Quinctilius Varus, the governor of Syria, in his brutal suppression of the revolt which followed the death of Herod around 4 bc.45

In order to calm the tensions between the two peoples Herod Antipas married the daughter of Aretas IV,46 possibly at the suggestion of the emperor, Augustus, if Suetonius' report of his policy is correct (Augustus 48). In time, however, Antipas tired of her and divorced her in order to marry Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Philip.47 This marriage is probably to be dated in ad 23.48 Its criticism by John the Baptist is reported both by the Gospels and Josephus.49 Their divergent emphases (moral for the former; political for the latter) are in fact complementary, and adequately explain John's arrest and imprisonment in Machaerus, probably around ad 28.50 Herod Antipas had moved there from Galilee in order to be prepared for an attack by Aretas in revenge for the insult to his daughter. The latter in fact made a disputed area on his northern border a pretext for war.51 In the battle, which probably should be dated c. ad 29,52 the troops of Antipas were routed. Whereupon, according to

______

40 So recently Bruce (1977), 81-2; Betz (1979), 74; Legasse (1991), 72.

41 Only by an extremely tendentious treatment of a series of texts can N. Taylor (1993), 92-3, conclude that Paul's missionary consciousness began only when he was mandated by Antioch (Acts 13:1-3). 42 JW1.181.

43 JW1. 364-85. 44 AJ 16:282-5.

45 JW2. 68. 46 47i8. 109.

47 AJ 18:110. 48 Saulnier (1984), 365-71.

49 Mark 6:17-18 and par.; Josephus, AJ 18. 118.

50 AJ 18. 119. Although presented as the date of the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry, 'the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar' (Luke 3:1) is more likely to be the date of his arrest.

51 The text of AJ 18.113 is defective and Gabalis is the most probable restoration; see Hoehner (1972), 254-5; Schürer (1973-87), 1. 350. It is not impossible that the conflict inspired Jesus' parable of two kings going out to war (Luke 14:31-2). Were the allusion certain it would date the battle before ad 30, the year in which Jesus died.

52 Saulnier (1984), 375.

{page 83}

Josephus, he indignantly complained to Rome.53 The historicity of this complaint cannot be guaranteed, but a war could not be kept secret and the news would certainly come to the ears of the emperor.

The Situation when Paul Arrived

Aretas IV had every reason to feel anxious, because he had both indirect knowledge, and direct experience, of the anger of a Roman emperor, when peace was disturbed on the eastern frontier of the empire. The following are the essentials of a rather complicated story which took place some forty years earlier.54

With the authorization of C. Sentius Saturninus, the governor of Syria, Herod the Great went into Arabia to arrest criminals from his territory in Trachonitis. A skirmish ensued when the Nabataeans intervened to protect them, and some soldiers on both sides died. Syllaeus, who represented the Nabataeans in Rome, presented the affair to Augustus as an unwarranted breach of the peace. The emperor's extreme displeasure explains why Herod had been careful to secure prior Roman approval for his military action. It did him no good, however, and he lost the imperial favour completely. As Augustus put it in a severe reprimand, Herod had been relegated from the status of a friend to that of a subject. The emperor refused a first embassy from Judaea, and only reluctantly heard a second embassy led by Nicolaus of Damascus, who with the support of ambassadors from Aretas IV, proved Syllaeus' version of the episode to be false. Herod was restored to favour, but Aretas found himself in serious trouble, because on the death of Obodas he had assumed the throne of Arabia without the permission of Rome. Augustus had planned to entrust Arabia to Herod, and it was only the latter's refusal that enabled Aretas to succeed after being reproved for his rashness.

Aretas, therefore, knew from personal experience that Rome had little patience with warlike actions between the client kings who guarded the eastern frontier of the empire. It would be most surprising if he had not feared some reaction on the part of Tiberius, as he had once dreaded the response of Augustus. The retirement of Tiberius to Capri in ad 26 has been interpreted as a loss of interest in the affairs of state. While there may be some truth in this as regards internal affairs, it is not so as regards the provinces.55 Philo's judgement that in his twenty-three years of rule Tiberius 'did not let the smallest spark of war smoulder in Greece or the world outside Greece',56 while not completely accurate,57 is borne out (for the part of the world with which we are concerned) by his vigourous and effective responses in matters large, e.g. the Parthian

______

53 AJ 18. 115. 54 AJ 16. 271-355.

55 See Charlesworth (1950). 56 Leg. 141.

57 There were uprisings in Africa (ad 17), in Thrace (ad 19,21,25), and in Gaul (ad 21). See Scul-lard (1982), 278-80.

{page 84}

occupation of Armenia in ad 34,58 and small, e.g. when Pilate to annoy the Jews placed shields with the emperor's name in Herod's palace in Jerusalem.59 His vigilance regarding the security of the eastern frontier is perfectly illustrated by the way he responded to the death of Herod Philip in ad 33/34. He immediately attached the territory to the province of Syria, while leaving the revenues to accumulate for a successor.60 Despite his age and weariness, Tiberius was perfectly capable of reacting quickly and decisively. In the case of Aretas it only needed an order to the governor of Syria, who had four legions at his disposition.61

As Aretas waited tensely for something to happen, his attitude towards Jews was certainly anything but benign. They (in the person of their king) were responsible for the desperate anxiety which weighed upon him. A Roman reprisal would be but the latest in the series of disasters which they had brought upon his people. His subjects presumably shared his apprehension and his anger, both of which intensified as the years passed. By the time Paul arrived cad 33 the tension would have been building for some three years. It was certainly not a propitious moment for a Jew to begin preaching what to an outsider was but a new variety of Judaism. To those Nabataeans who were the objects of his ministry it could only appear as an attempt to infiltrate, divide, and weaken them. What they saw as an invitation to betrayal would have prompted an immediate and violent reaction. Paul, however, escaped. Otherwise there would have been no point in drawing the authorities into the affair and painting him in such colours that he was remembered as dangerous three years later (cf. 2 Cor. 11:32-3).

If the above assessment of the situation is correct, it is unlikely that Paul penetrated very deeply into Arabia. He may not even have reached Bosra; there were three Nabataean towns further north, Phillopolis, Kanatha, and Suweida.62 If Aretas contemplated armed resistance to Rome, he would certainly have had troops in that area, and Paul would have been a figure of suspicion once he opened his mouth. This makes it improbable that Paul stayed long.63 His silence as to the duration suggests that it was very short, since he lists his two weeks in Jerusalem and his three years in Damascus (Gal. 1:18).

______

58 Josephus, AJ 18. 96-105; Dio Cassius, History 58. 26. 1-4; 59. 27. 2-4; Tacitus, Annals 6. 31-7.

59 Philo, Leg. 299-308; Josephus, JW 2. 169-74.

60 AJ 18. 108.

61 Who precisely was in charge in Syria at this stage is problematic; see Schürer (1973-87), 1. 260-2, 362. It is improbable that L. Vitellius, who became governor of Syria in ad 35, was ever ordered by Tiberius to attack Aretas as Josephus reports (AJ 18. 115, 120-6). The latter gives a completely different explanation for the presence of Vitellius in Jerusalem in AJ 18. 90-5. See Saulnier (1984), 373-4.

62 See the map in Negev (1977), 550.

63 Against Meeks (1983), 10, who believes that Paul preached for three years in such cities as Petra, Gerasa, Philadelphia, and Bosra.

{page 85}

The imprudent gesture is important only in so far as it indicates that from the beginning he was convinced that his mission was to Gentiles.

Damascus

Paul gives us no information on how he passed the next three years in Damascus (Gal. 1:18). According to Luke, Paul's ministry there was devoted to the conversion of Jews (Acts 9:20). Not only is this part of the build up to Luke's explanation of why Paul had to leave the city (Acts 9:23), which is contradicted by the Apostle (2 Cor. 11:32-3), but it is incompatible with Paul's conviction that his mission was to the Gentiles.

Learning a Trade

Before touching on this issue, a more fundamental question needs to be raised: how did Paul support himself? For some reason this question is never asked. Perhaps it is taken for granted that he was independently wealthy, even though subsequently he had to work for a living, or that the church there granted him free room and board for life, even though he had no claim upon it, having contributed nothing to its foundation. Moreover, no church could assume the financial burden of guaranteeing subsistence to converts. Not only was it the road to financial difficulties,64 but it was most unwise to give the appearance of buying converts. It seems probable, therefore, that Paul supported himself. The key questions then become: what skill did he have, and where did he acquire it?

Paul himself tells us only that he worked with his hands (1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:7-9; 1 Cor. 4:12). His attitude towards such labour is all the more significant in that it emerges only indirectly. He lists it among the unfair hardships of his life (1 Cor. 4:12; 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:23,27) and qualifies it as 'slavish' (1 Cor. 9:19) and 'demeaning' (2 Cor. 11:7). No one bred to a craft would speak of it in this way.65 Paul's stance is that of those whose inherited status preserved them from physical work.

This conclusion conflicts with the widespread view that Paul owed his trade tb his Jewish background. Texts such as 'He who does not teach his son a craft teaches him brigandage' (b. Kidd. 33a) are adduced as statements of principle designed to explain the fact that rabbis were self-supporting. This practice,

______

64 When the money of wealthy members of the church of Jerusalem (Acts 2:45; 4:34-5:11) ran out, help from abroad became necessary (Gal. 2:10).

65 The arguments of Hock (1978) are in no way affected by the strained objections of Stegemann (1987), 227, or Legasse (1991), 41.

{page 86}

however, is neither as clear nor as well attested as is often thought.66 Ben Sira begins his developed contrast between the tradesman and the scholar (38:24 to 39:11) with the words 'The wisdom of the scribe depends on the opportunity of leisure; only the one who has little business can become wise,' and goes on to exclude from access to wisdom 'every artisan and master craftsman who labours by night as well as by day' (38:27; cf. 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:27). Any occupation was a distraction from the study of the Law. All the evidence of rabbis practising trades dates from the post-AD 70 period when conditions in Jerusalem had changed radically for the worst. Then the rabbis had to work in order to survive, and necessity was transformed into a virtue, 'All study of the Law without [worldly] labour comes to naught at the last and brings sin in its train' (m. Aboth 2. 2) Presumably it was at this stage that trades were attributed to Hillel and Shammai.67

Thus there is no evidence to suggest that when Paul was a Pharisaic student in the Holy City he was under any pressure from his masters to learn a trade. Moreover, there was neither need nor incentive. His intense commitment to his studies (Gal. 1:14) precluded the distraction of other interests, and even if he received nothing from his family (which appears unlikely) he would not have starved, because there were many who sought merit by alms-giving.68

On his conversion to Christianity, however, Paul would no longer be an acceptable recipient of institutionalized Jewish charity, and he may have lost contact with his family. When, speaking of his family background, he says, 'Whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ' (Phil. 3:8). It is natural to understand that he had been disinherited. In any case, it was during his stay in Damascus, and perhaps because of his travels in Arabia, that Paul is most likely to have become conscious of the need to be self-sufficient. His mission demanded a mobility which would enable him to reach out to the whole Gentile world. Only financial independence could give him such freedom, and it was impossible without a marketable skill.69 According to Luke, he decided to become a 'tent-maker' (Acts 18:3).70

Although the letters furnish no direct confirmation, the statement has a very definite intrinsic plausibility. When contemplating which trade to choose, Paul must have established a number of criteria for himself. The skill to acquire had to be in demand throughout the Roman empire, in the cities as well as on the road; it had to bring him into contact with all levels of the population; its tools

______

66 So rightly Hock (1978), 557. The speculative character of the considerations advanced by Hengel (1991), 15-16, dramatically underlines the lack of hard evidence to support the view that pre-AD 70 rabbis had trades.

67 The texts are assembled by Billerbeck (1922-8), 2. 745-6.

68 See 'The Subsidized Sections of the Population' in Jeremias (1969), 111-19.

69 The other options were to acquire a patron or to beg as he travelled. The former would have impaired his mobility, and the latter would have compromised his credibility.

70 See further below, Ch. 11, 'Working with Prisca and Aquila'.

{page 87}

had to be easily portable; and it had to be quiet and sedentary so that he could preach and work at the same time. When judged from the standpoint of twentieth century life, tent-making would appear to fail on all counts. What need, for example, had urban dwellers of tents?

In first-century Rome a number of inscriptions attest the existence of an organization known as 'The Tent-makers Association'.71 Pliny the Elder describes what work they did in a way which answers the above question.

Linen cloths were used in the theatres as awnings, a plan first invented by Quintus Catulus when dedicating the Capitol.72... Next even when there was no display of games Marcellus, the son of Augustus's sister Octavia, during his period of office as aedile in the eleventh consulship of his uncle, from the first of August onwards afixed awnings of sailcloth over the forum, so that those engaged in lawsuits might resort there under healthier conditions. What a change this was from the stern manners of Cato the ex-censor, who had expressed the view that the forum ought to be paved with sharp pointed stones.73 Recently awnings actually of sky blue and spangled with stars have been stretched with ropes even in the emperor Nero's amphitheatres. Red awnings are used in the inner courts of houses and keep the sun off the moss growing there.74 (NH 19:23-4; trans. Rackham)

Tent-makers, therefore, could expect both public and private commissions in furnishing protection from the glaring summer sun, which was much more intense in the Middle East than in Italy. It should also be kept in mind that linen was one of the prime products of Tarsus.75

Awnings, however, were not the tent-maker's only product. On certain occasions the inns of Rome were not capable of handling all those who flocked to the city. Thus in 45 bc when Julius Caesar celebrated the defeat of all his enemies by magnificent displays of all sorts, 'Such a throng flocked to all these shows from every quarter that many strangers had to lodge in tents pitched in the streets or along the roads' (Suetonius, Caesar 39. 4; trans. Rolfe).

Whether such tents were also of linen is an open question. Certainly a distinction must be made between the light linen of summer beach pavilions designed to provide shade without impeding the breeze,76 and the much stouter linen used as sailcloth,77 and for hucksters' booths.78 The difference in weight

______

71 CIL 6. 5183b, 9053, 9053a.

72 The technique is illustrated in Macaulay (1974), 104-5.

73 To discourage loiterers.

74 The moss grew in a rectangular basin in the middle of the courtyard which collected rainwater. The covering prevented evaporation in the heat of summer.

75 A guild of linen-workers is mentioned by Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 34. 21 and 23.

76 Cicero, Against Verres 2. 5. 30 and 80.

77 According to Pliny, 'Cleopatra had a purple linen sail when she came with Mark Antony to Actium, and with the same sail she fled' (NH 19.22) after the victory of Octavian.

78 'In wintertime, when the arcades are crammed with canvas market-stalls' (Juvenal, Satires 6. 153-4). The reference is to the feast of the Saturnalia celebrated 17-19 December.

{page 88}

and flexibility between such canvas and leather is negligible, and the waterproofing of the latter is superior. It is doubtful, therefore, that leather tents were used exclusively by the military.79

Since it was to a tentmaker's economic advantage to be able to work all year and in all climates, it must be assumed that Paul was equally at home in sewing together strips of leather or different weights of canvas. There is little difference in technique in joining two thicknesses of leather or heavy canvas. It takes an awl to make the hole in a rolled-over canvas seam as it does in leather, and in both cases the curved needle must be slipped through before the hole closes.

With this silent skill Paul needed only a moon-shaped knife, an awl, needles, and waxed thread, and could be sure of finding jobs on every road he travelled and on every sea he sailed. He could reinforce a sail and remake the tents that passengers and crew used for shelter on deck and for accommodation on shore at night.80 He could repair the canvas roof of a wagon or the harness of the draught animals. He could put a stitch or two in any of the multifarious articles of leather used by travellers, sandals, gaiters, belts, cloaks, and gourds.

Every town of any size had its festival for which booths and tents were necessary.81 If a traveller timed his visit right, the local workshops would be glad of a skilled hand. At Corinth, for example, Paul found work with Prisca and Aquila (Acts 18:3),82 who catered to the perennial need for awnings, but who also profited from the fact that the biennial Isthmian Games meant continuous business in the repair and creation of tents.83 There was no town at Isthmia, and the tents set up around the sanctuary of Poseidon catered for vast numbers of visitors from far and near, as well as for the hucksters of Corinth who went out to fleece them.84

Thus in terms of his missionary strategy Paul chose wisely. He acquired a skill whose products many needed. It enabled him to travel widely, although it would never make him rich, even though he worked 'night and day' (i Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:9).85 It enabled him to survive, but only barely, because he never stayed in one place long enough to build up a stable clientele. As his ministry ate into his time, subsidies became necessary (Phil. 4:15-16; 2 Cor. 11:9). But that day was still a long way in the future.

The disadvantage of Paul's choice was that it stigmatized him as belonging to a group, which was despised by a social class from which he had to recruit assistants. In a letter designed to contribute to the education of his son Marcus, then a student in Athens, Cicero speaks for the world in which Paul lived:

______

79 Pace Lampe (1987), 256-61. Hock (1980), 20-1 is also too categorical in claiming that all tents were made of leather, and that Paul in consequence would be better described as a leather- worker.

80 Casson (1979), 154.

81 Ibid. 91. 82 See Ch. 11, 'Working with Prisca and Aquila'.

83 See my (1992a), 14-17.

84 For a description of the crowds, see Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 8. 9.

85 On the poverty of the artisan, see Hock (1980), 34-5.

{page 89}

In regard to trades and other means of livlihood, which ones are to be considered becoming to a gentleman and which ones are vulgar, we have been taught, in general, as follows: First, those means of livelihood are rejected as undesirable which incur people's ill-will, as those of tax-gatherers and usurers. Unbecoming to a gentleman, too, and vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; forin their case the very wages they receive is a pledge of their slavery. Vulgar we must consider those also who buy from wholesale merchants to retail immediately; for they would get no profits without a great deal of downright lying; and verily there is no action that is meaner than misrepresentation. And all artisans are engaged in vulgar trades; for no workshop can have anything liberal about it. Least respectable of all are those trades which cater to sensual pleasures: 'Fishmongers, butchers, cooks, and poulterers and fishermen,' as Terence says. Add to these, if you please, the perfumers, dancers, and the whole vaudeville crowd. But the professions in which either a higher degree of intelligence is required or from which no small benefit to society is derived-medicine and architecture, for example, and teaching-these are proper for those to whose social position they are appropriate.

(De Offtciis 150-1; trans. Miller adapted; emphasis added)

The elite found various reasons to justify their prejudice. The bent-over position in which craftspeople worked indicated servility. Manual labour coarsened not only the body but the spirit. Dirt under the nails stained the soul. Lack of time excluded the acquisition of virtue or learning. Poverty engendered venality.86

Naturally those who belonged to the working class did not think of themselves in this way. To work for reward was as integral to their self-understanding as their parentage. Their pride in their craft, however lowly, is underlined by the fact that they often had it inscribed on their tombstones.87 As one of them, Paul had easy access to the vast majority of his fellow-citizens, but in each city he also needed one or two from among the elite, if only to provide a space large enough for the believers to meet. That he succeeding in impressing such people-and at Corinth his first converts certainly belonged to the elite88-says much about the quality of Paul's personality.

Ministry to Gentiles

Even if Josephus exaggerates the number of Jews slain at the outbreak of the First Revolt in ad 66,89 there can be little doubt that Damascus had a sizeable

______

86 MacMullen (1976), 114-18; Hock (1980), 35-7.

87 MacMullen (1976), 120. On retirement, scribes dedicated their equipment to Hermes (Greek Anthology 6. 63 and 65).

88 See Ch. 11, 'The First Converts'.

89 The hesitation is due to the fact that one cannot harmonize the two figures he offers in differ ent parts of the same work, 10,000 (JW 2. 561) and 18,000 (JWj. 368).

{page 90}

Jewish population. None the less its ethos was essentially pagan.90 As a founding member of the Decapolis, it was an independent Greek city whose culture was strongly Hellenized; its coins exclusively represent Greek deities. It owed its prominence and wealth91 to its position at one of the great crossroads of the ancient world. The trade routes from Anatolia and Mesopotamia joined there before splitting again to go down the plateau into Arabia or out to the coast and south to Egypt. If in the second century bc its merchants went as far as Delos, we can be sure that those of other nationalities had a base in Damascus. In other words, Paul would have had little difficulty in fulfilling his missionary vocation in Damascus.

Presumably he preached during his trade apprenticeship as the opportunity arose. A three-year stay would suggest that he found plenty of work to do, and he must have been extremely disconcerted when the Nabataeans assumed control of the city in the latter part of ad 37s2 and moved to arrest him. Why they bothered remains a mystery. The lapse of time had made it clear that the Romans had no intention of bringing Aretas to book for the war against Herod Antipas. There is no mention in Josephus of any Nabataean reprisals against the Jewish community. More importantly, the emperor Tiberius was dead and his successor Gaius was their friend. All the anxieties which had led the Nabataeans to see the Apostle as a threat had dissipated. Perhaps Paul exaggerated the danger!

Jerusalem

In any case Paul fled Damascus, never to return. The journey to Jerusalem would have taken about a week. This time there is no mystery about his purpose; he came historesai Kephan (Gal. 1:18). Two translations are possible: (a) 'to visit Cephas';93 'to get acquainted with Cephas';94 and (b) 'to get information from Cephas'.95 The majority opt for the former rendering on the grounds that Paul's defence in Galatians demands that he show complete independence of Jerusalem. While this was certainly Paul's objective in the letter, I suspect that Paul deliberately chose an ambiguous term,96 because one cannot imagine

______

90 See Schürer (1973-87), 2. 36-7, 127-30.

91 Strabo calls it 'remarkable, noteworthy', and mentions merchants from Arabia Felix (Geography 16. 2. 20). Its best-known citizen at this period was Nicolaus of Damascus, friend of Herod the Great, and Josephus' best source; see Wacholder (1962) and Schürer (1973-87), 1. 28-32.

92 See Ch. 1, 'Date of Departure from Damascus'.

93 Betz (1979), 76.

94 Longenecker (1990), 37.

95 Kilpatrick (1959), 144-9.

96 So rightly Dunn (1992), 73, 'Paul was evidently concerned neither to claim too much nor to deny too little.'

{page 91}

that Paul's conversation with Peter focused exclusively on the weather,97 the health of the latter's mother-in-law, or his nostalgia for fishing on the Sea of Galilee!

Knowledge of the Historical Jesus

It takes neither imagination nor intelligence to recognize how Paul must have reacted in the presence of one who had lived with Jesus from the time that both were disciples of John the Baptist. The centrality of Christ in Paul's conversion experience and his theology, and the natural curiosity engendered by the hints he picked up during his three years in the Christian community at Damascus, make it extremely improbable that he did not avail himself to the utmost of Peter's knowledge of the historical Jesus. At this point Peter had been preaching for seven years, and through repetition his story would inevitably have acquired the fixed form of a gospel, with a beginning, middle, and end. Having lived for two weeks with the prime eyewitness of the earthly ministry, Paul certainly learnt much about the historical Jesus.98

A number of features in his letters tend to confirm this conclusion. The historical Jesus is fundamental to Paul's theology. The disciple who wrote Ephesians caught the Apostle's approach perfectly when he presents Jesus as the truth of Christ (Eph. 4:21)." When his converts attempted to separate the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history, Paul resisted by insisting that the Lord of Glory was the crucified Jesus (1 Cor. 2:6), and by stressing that Christ had been received 'as Jesus the Lord' (Col. 2:6).100 The implication that Paul preached the historical Jesus is formally confirmed by his condemnation of anyone 'who preaches a Jesus other than the one we preached' (2 Cor. 11:4).101

There are two references to sayings of Jesus in First Corinthians, the prohibition of divorce (7:10-11) and the directive concerning the livelihood of pastors (9:14). It is emphasized by some that these are not direct quotations but rather allusions or reminiscences. This is done in order to bring them into line with the rest of Paul's correspondence, where the situation has been rather precisely described by F. Neirynck, 'Possible allusions to gospel sayings can be noted on the basis of similarity of form and context but a direct use of a gospel saying in the form in which it has been preserved in the synoptic gospels is hardly possible.'102 The negative thrust of such a judgement should not be exaggerated.

______

97 According to Lüdemann (1984), 70, 'W. D. Davies once picked up on a statement by C. H. Dodd and remarked humorously, "Certainly Paul and Peter did not spend their time talking about the weather".'

98 Similarly Dunn (1985), 138-9.

99 See de la Potterie (1963).

100 Abbott (1897), 244; Lightfoot (1904), 174.

101 See my (1990).

102 (1986), 320.

{page 92}

Formally attributed direct quotations were the exception rather than the rule in the age and world in which Paul lived. Use acknowledged value; one borrowed only from the rich. One should expect, therefore, that if Paul knew the teaching of Jesus it would have informed the Apostle's thought to the point where any distinction of source and personal elaboration would be, not only impossible, but meaningless.

Recent studies, moreover, suggest that Paul knew not just the dominical saying but the context in which it appears in the synoptic tradition.103 One example must suffice. The theme of the support of pastors appears in Luke 10 and it has been shown that this chapter is linked to 1 Corinthians 9 by a whole series of shared terms: an 'apostle' who is ('to sow' and) 'to reap' has the 'right' to a 'reward' for his 'preaching the good news' because a 'workman' has a right 'to eat' and 'to drink'. The contacts are too numerous to make coincidence a credible explanation, particularly since the same type of contacts are to be found in other blocks of material.104 The influence of the historical Jesus on the Pauline parenetic tradition has also been demonstrated in Romans. 'The echoes of the Jesus tradition are not all of the same strength, but together they build into an impressive case for saying that Paul must have known a substantial amount of the Jesus tradition which was later committed to the present Gospel form by the Evangelists.'105

It has also been pointed out that, although Pharisaism was essentially an urban movement and Paul a city man, the Apostle uses an unusually high proportion of metaphors which reflect a rural environment and an agrarian culture.106 H. Riesenfeld has persuasively argued that these show that Paul was familiar with the language of Jesus' parables, because the contacts are too specific to be explained by common dependence on the Old Testament.107

Yet when we come to tabulate the references to the historical Jesus in the Pauline letters all we learn is that he was a Jew (Rom. 9:4-5) of the line of David (Rom. 1:3), who had a mother (Gal. 4:4), who was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23) and crucified (1 Cor. 2:2 and passim), as a result of which he died and was buried (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

The meagreness of this result and the obscurity of the allusions have led many to deny that Paul had any detailed knowledge of the gospel tradition. They argue that had Paul known any more about the historical Jesus, he would have used it. This argument from silence only looks strong. It is meaningless without the unprovable and unwarranted assumption that Paul would have reacted in the same way as we would, if we had access to first-hand information

______

103 Dungan (1971).

104 Fjarstedt (1974). See also Allison (1982).

105 Dunn (1989), 205.

106 Rom. 1:13; 6:21; 7:4-5; 11:17-24; 15:28; 1 Cor. 3:6-9; 9 (passim); 15:36-44; 2 Cor. 9:6- 10; Gal. 5:22; 6:7-9; Phil. 1:22; 4:17.

107 (1960), 47-59.

{page 93}

about the historical Jesus. The real question is, why did not Paul display all the knowledge he had? The search for an answer leads to important insights into his Christology.108

A Missionary Agreement

We have seen that Paul's conversion experience, in addition to a new vision of Jesus of Nazareth, also embodied the conviction that hitherto his life was to be dedicated to preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. One would expect this issue to have surfaced also in his discussions with Peter. The present thrust of Galatians is no objection, because it is evident that Paul only subsequently transformed his original de facto independence of Jerusalem into a matter of principle.

Confirmation of this obvious assumption has been sought by G. Lüdemann who argues that the phrase, 'just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised, for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles' (Gal. 2:7b-8), refers to an agreement made between Peter and Paul on the occasion of the latter's first visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18).109

These verses have always been a problem to commentators because they stand in tension with their context. Verses 7b-8 use 'Peter', whereas in the context he is called 'Cephas' (v. 9,11,14; cf. 1:18). In verses 7b-8 'Peter' is the sole authority figure to negotiate with Paul, who is alone, but in verse 9 the latter is accompanied by Barnabas, and 'Cephas' is but number two in a triumvirate led by James. Exegetes aware of these tensions, who have also observed that 'knowing the grace given me' (v. 9a) is a reprise of 'seeing that I have been entrusted with' (v. 7 a), postulate that Paul is here quoting part of the minutes of the Jerusalem Conference.110 Lüdemann with eminent common sense points out that such an official report would not use the first-person singular and would certainly mention Peter before Paul.111 Equally untenable is the solution proposed by G. Klein, namely, that verse 7 reflects the situation in Jerusalem at the time of the Conference, while verse 9 was added at the time of the composition of Galatians in order to take into account the change in leadership in the Jerusalem church which had taken place in the interval.112 How would Paul have known of the change? And, if he did, why would he have bothered to note it, particularly in a situation where he was desperately trying to prove his independence of Jerusalem?

______

108 See my (19826), 33-57.

109 (1984), 64-71. Similarly A. Schmidt (1992), 149-52.

110 e.g. Cullmann (1953), 20; Dinkier (1953), 182-3.

111 (1984), 68.

112 (1960), 286-7.

{page 94}

The hypothesis that verses 7b-8 refer, not to the Conference whose conclusion is described in verse 9, but to a different meeting, is the only explanation that does full justice to the evidence.113 When did this meeting take place? It cannot have taken place after the Conference. That would have been pointless, since Peter had been a party to the decision of the Conference. Moreover, a comparison of Galatians 1:18-19 with Galatians 2:9 shows that James had superseded Peter within the Jerusalem church-a shift in the authority structure which is confirmed by Galatians 2:12 and Acts-so that after the Conference Peter was not in a position to act alone. Hence the meeting with Peter in verse 7b must have taken place before the Conference.

In this span of time, however, we have at most three possibilities. Galatians 2:2 may evoke two meetings,114 but both can be excluded immediately, because in each case Paul was confronted by a group, not a single individual as in verse 7b.115 Thus we are forced to locate it during Paul's first visit to Jerusalem. There is no other known possibility within the framework of the letters.116

Why did Paul transpose an agreement made during his first visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:7-8) into an account of his second visit (Gal. 2:1-10)? He gained a number of significant advantages.117 First, by separating the fact of the first meeting (Gal. 1:18) from its content (Gal. 2:7-8) he avoided giving the impression that the missionary work done subsequent to his conversion was carried out under the aegis of a Jerusalem commission, and he was able to fix in the mind of his readers the value of that first meeting as a purely exploratory encounter; the ambiguity of the historeo has already been noted. Secondly, by juxtaposing the contents of the two meetings he managed to insinuate that the equality that emerged from the Conference (Gal. 2:6, 9) was also true of the first meeting, where Paul certainly lacked the authority in the church which Peter enjoyed.118

Practice was the basis of Paul's agreement with Peter at this initial meeting in the autumn of ad 37. Peter had in fact been preaching to Jews, just as Paul had been preaching to Gentiles in Arabia and Damascus. What success they had, they attributed to God; note the formulation of Galatians 2:8, 'because he who was at work in Peter for the apostolate to the circumcised also worked in me

113 Compare the vacillation of Betz (1979), 97-8; Longenecker (1990), 55-6.

114 Betz (1979), 86; Longenecker (1990), 48.

115 Against Legasse (1991), 79 n. 14.

116 According to the present text of Acts, Paul made six visits to Jerusalem (9:26-8; 11:29-30; 12:25; 15:1-2, 11; 18:22; 21:1, 5-17). The first and the last can be equated with Gal. 1:18 and Rom. 15:25, respectively. Source criticism suggests that the other four are all to be equated with Gal. 2:1; see Benoit (1959); Lüdemann (1984), 149-57.

117 Quintilian denies that the 'statement of facts' inarratio) should always depict the real order of events; the decision should be based on what is most advantageous for the defendant in the circum stances and nature of the case (Insatutio Oratorio., 4.2. 83-4).

118 The difference between the two is in fact underlined by the attribution of 'apostleship' to Peter but not to Paul (Gal. 2:8).

{page 95}

for the Gentiles'. The initial 'because' justifies the divine passive of the preceding verse, 'I was entrusted with the gospel,' and explains why Paul says that his responsibility was visible, 'they saw' (Gal. 2:7). Each ministry was authenticated in the same way, namely, by the effectiveness of grace, the power of God made visible. Only later did such simplicity yield to the complications of institutionalization.

The Missing Years

A Gap in the Record

From Jerusalem Paul went to 'the regions of Syria and Cilicia' (Gal. 1:21). One can deduce that he visited Antioch on the Orontes, the capital of the Roman province of Syria, and his home town of Tarsus in Cilicia. From this point there is an eight-year gap in the record, i.e. until early in ad 46 when the letters again furnish us with information about Paul's career.119

In Acts this gap is to some extent filled by a mission of Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus and southern Asia Minor (Acts 13-14). While some scholars dismiss this mission as a fictional creation of Luke, the majority tend towards the view that his source contained at least a list of the places visited by Paul and Barnabas.120 The basis for this opinion is the allusion to 'what befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra' in 2 Timothy 3: n, which at best is confirmation by Paul himself121 of a mission in southern Asia Minor (Acts 13:14; 14:1, 8), or at worst a Pauline tradition completely independent of Acts.122

The letters unambiguously confirm that at one time Paul worked with Barnabas. They appear together at the Jerusalem Conference (Gal. 2:1) as representatives of the mission to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9). The fact that Paul singles out Barnabas in 1 Corinthians 9:6 ('Is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?'), even though he did not accompany Paul to Corinth (2 Cor. 1:19; Acts 15:36-41), underlines the position of Barnabas as a senior well-known missionary whose status was in some way comparable to that of other apostles, the brothers of the Lord and Cephas (1 Cor. 9:5). The nature of the allusion suggests that Paul knew Barnabas' attitude towards financial support because they had acted in the same way in the same circumstances.

Paul's treatment of the incident at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-21) suggests that both he and Barnabas were members of that community.123 They are simply

______

119 See Ch. 1, 'Prior to ad 57'.

120 See Haenchen (197i), 438-9.

121 See the discussion of the authenticity of 2 Tim. in Ch. 14.

122 See Lüdemann (1984), 180 n. 2.

123 Gal. 2:11-21 is dealt with more fully in Ch. 6, 'The Incident at Antioch'.

{page 96}

there, whereas the 'coming' of Peter and the 'arrival' of the emissaries of James are explicitly mentioned (Gal. 2:11-12). There is also a slight hint in the letters that Paul's early missionary journeys were undertaken as an emissary of Antioch, as Luke suggests (cf. Acts 13:1-3). It has already been pointed out that the lack of any self-justification in 1-2 Thessalonians dates them to a period when Paul enjoyed the security of a missionary mandate, which can only be that of Antioch.

The initiative displayed in his abortive expedition into Arabia (Gal. 1:17) makes it impossible to assume that Paul did not obey the imperative of his commissioning conversion in Syria, Cilicia, and elsewhere. His letters show that he considered himself solely responsible for the communities he founded during the great journey which began at the latest in ad 46. The necessary implication of this banality is that Paul did not feel the same sort of responsibility for other converts made previously to whom he did not write. Why not? The obvious answer is that he was sure that someone else had the responsibility and was faithfully exercising it. This means that during the years ad 37-46 the Apostle's position resembled that of Timothy when he was Paul's assistant. Who, then, was in charge? On the basis of the letters the only name which can be suggested is that of Barnabas.

These epistolary clues of somewhat unequal value can be combined to create the following picture of some, if not all, of Paul's career in the years ad 37-46. He joined the community at Antioch, whence he was sent as assistant to Barnabas to evangelize the southern part of Asia Minor, notably the cities of Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium and Lystra.124 The mission would have been completely in accord with his own understanding of his responsibility to the Gentiles. Unless Barnabas established a rhythm notably slower than that of Paul when he became independent, this mission would have occupied at most two years. It is not impossible, however, that the mission field may have been more extensive than Luke suggests. But where precisely the rest of the time was spent we shall never know.

Dangers on the Road

Of two things, however, we can be certain. Paul was not idle and he kept moving. Some idea of the distances he covered has been given in Chapter 1, but of his experiences on the road Paul gives but a very summary account, 'During my frequent journeys I have been exposed to dangers from rivers, dangers from brigands, dangers from my own people, dangers from Gentiles, dangers in the town and in the country, dangers at sea, dangers at the hands of false brothers' (2 Corinthians 11:26).125 The conditions of travel in the world of his day are

______

124 Thus there is a definite historical basis to Luke's account in Acts 13-14.

125 Translation from Martin (1986), 378.

{page 97}

well documented,126 and permit us to amplify his hints. The point is not merely of historical interest. The integration of his experience into a world-view had a significant impact on his theology.

The surprising feature of 2 Cor. 11:26 is the emphasis, not on difficulty, but on 'danger'. The element of risk, not struggle, is evidently uppermost in his mind. There would have been little peril from rivers on the great Roman arterial roads furnished with bridges.127 Secondary roads were another matter. In the east they were built for the long dry season, when stream beds had little or no water. In the spring the runoff of the winter rains turned crossings into dangerous fords whose violence can still be experienced on the banks of the Dead Sea and in the Arava valley.

Such danger, however real, was sporadic. Robbers were a much more consistent threat. Casson reflects a rather common but mistaken view in writing, 'the through routes were policed well enough for him [any traveller] to ride

them with relatively little fear of bandits Wherever he went, he was underthe protective umbrella of a well-organized, efficient legal system.'128 In Italy, on the contrary, as a consequence of the anarchy of the civil wars, brigandage was endemic, and travellers faced the additional risk of being shanghaied as slaves by owners of land bordering the roads. Augustus reacted by stationing troops on the roads,129 and by delegating Tiberius to inspect the slave-prisons to ensure that no freemen were being held.130 When the latter became emperor he had to concentrate garrisons even closer together in order to make the roads safe.131 Yet at the end of the first century, Pliny the Younger could write of the disappearance without trace of a Roman knight and of a centurion and their parties on main roads in Umbria as if it were a not unheard of occurrence.132

If such was the case at the centre of the empire, one can infer with a high degree of probability that conditions were much worse in distant provinces.133 The legions stationed in Syria, Asia, and Macedonia did not double as police forces in anything like the modern sense. Detachments might be sent to deal with a particularly troublesome robber band, and even then not as a matter of policy, but in response to pressure from an influential person.134 In senatorial

______

126 The basic study remains Casson (1974). It should be supplemented, however, by Millar (1981), to which I am heavily indebted. See also Andre and Baslez (1993). Graphic illustration of how little things have changed in two thousand years is provided by Lithgow (1974). Much of the some 36,000 miles (57,600 km.) which the unprivileged Lithgow (1582-1654) covered alone and on foot was in Pauline territory, and his experience reflects the lot of those who travelled without the protection of rank and/or wealth.

127 Chevallier (1972), 103-15.

128 (1974).

129 Suetonius, Augustus 32. 1.

130 Suetonius, Tiberius 8.

131 Ibid. 37. 1.

132 Letters, 6. 25

133 For for a catalogue of horrors in Mysia, see S. Mitchell (1993), 1. 166.

134 Apuleius, Metamorphoses 7:7.

{page 98}

provinces the proconsul normally had at his disposition some auxiliary units,135 which accompanied him as he travelled throughout his territory. In principle a proconsul was expected to hold court in various cities within his charge during his year of office, but the size of provinces and the length of proceedings ensured that even an energetic and competent administrator (a rare species) could intervene only sporadically and in the more important centres, where, we can safely assume, access was monopolized by prominent figures.136 The poor had no recourse,137 and the vast majority of small towns and villages never saw a Roman official. Apuleius catches the reality of the situation in the warning a friend gives Lucius in Hypata (modern Ipati) in Thessaly,

Don't stay too long at the party. Come back as soon as you can, for in the early hours Hypata is terrorized by a gang of young thugs who think it amusing to murder whoever happens to be passing by, and to leave the streets strewn with corpses. They are members of the first families in town, and the Roman barracks are so far away, so nothing can be done to end the nuisance.

(Metamorphoses 2.18; trans. Graves adapted)

Security in the countryside was much worse. Poverty forced many into brigandage.138 Any robber anywhere could be sure that all travellers had money on them; they had to pay their way and no credit cards or cheque books were available.139 Those obliged to travel alone did so with fear and trembling, certainly in lonely wooded stretches of the road,140 where in Greece wild animals were as much a danger as bandits. Apuleius mentions bears (Metamorphoses 4. 13; 7. 24), wild boar (8. 4), but reserves his goriest language for wolves,

The authorities requested us not to continue our journey that night or even the following morning, because the district was overrun by packs of enormous wolves, grown so bold that they even turned highwaymen and pulled down travellers on the roads or stormed farm-buildings, showing as little respect for the armed occupants as for their defenceless flocks. We were warned that the road we wished to take was strewn with half-eaten corpses and clean-picked skeletons and that we ought to proceed with all possible caution, travelling only in broad daylight - the higher the sun the milder the wolves-and in a compact body, not straggling along anyhow. (Metamorphoses 8.15; trans. Graves)

Travellers voyaged in groups whenever possible and, given the double danger, it seems reasonable to assume that many were armed, at least with staves.141

135 Ritterling (1927).

136 Burton (1975).

137 This is wittily brought out by the ass Lucius, who can only pronounce the 'O' of the intro duction to his appeal 'O Caesar' (Apuleius, Metamorphoses 3. 29).

138 Ibid. 4. 23. On brigandage in general, see MacMullen (1966), 255-68.

139 Horace, Epistles 1.17. 52-3.

140 Apuleius, Metamorphoses 1. 7.

141 Ibid. 8.16.

{page 99}

This meant that they could be seen as a threat by any village they approached. The consequences were predictable.

When we reached a small village, the inhabitants very naturally mistook us for a brigade of bandits. They were in such alarm that they unchained a pack of large mastiffs which they kept as watch-dogs, very savage beasts, worse than any wolf or bear, and set them at us with shouts, halloos and discordant cries. (Metamorphoses 8:17; cf. 9:36; trans. Graves)

The villagers had to rely on themselves for protection. If self-help was not sufficient, only neighbours could be relied on for aid.142 Slaves could loot the house of their dead owners, and escape retribution by moving to another town.143 Inevitably all strangers came under suspicion, whose degree was the inverse of the size of the place.144 This was not xenophobia but the fruit of hard experience.

A moment's absence from a cottage carried the risk of pilferage, and those who tried to defend their poor possessions endangered their lives.145 Though protected by walls, stout gates, and numerous slaves, who could be armed in an emergency, large houses were not immune. Thieves used all sorts of tricks to infiltrate the premises, both to spy out where valuables were stored and to open doors for accomplices.146 The alternative was a silent forced entry.147 When they thought they could get away with it, brigands in a frontal attack simply broke down the main gate, and held off the inhabitants with swords while looting the house.148

Inns were even less secure. Across the Roman province of Asia, they were spaced a day's journey apart-25 Roman or 22 English miles (35 km.)-with a small establishment (mutatio) where dispatch riders could change horses roughly halfway between two inns.149 The rooms were grouped around three or four sides of a courtyard with public rooms on the ground floor and sleeping accommodation above.150 Those with money to spend could buy privacy, but those with slender purses had to share a room with strangers; how many depended on the number of beds the landlord could cram in, or on his or her attitude to guests sleeping on the floor.151 Unless they wanted to cart their baggage with them, guests had to leave it unguarded while they visited the baths and a restaurant.152

The ease of theft needs no emphasis. Roman legislation made innkeepers responsible for the acts of their employees,153 but not all guests were honest,

______

142 Ibid. 4. 3,10 143 Ibid. 8.15-23.

144 Ibid. 7. 23. 145 Ibid. 4.12.

146 Ibid. 4. 14-18; cf. 7:1. 147 Ibid. 4. 9

148 Ibid. 3. 28. 149 Itinerarium Burdigalense 571-81.

150 Casson (1974), 201-3.

151 Acts of John 61-2 in Hennecke and Schneemelcher (1965), 2. 243-4.

152 Apuleius, Metamorphoses 1. 24. 153 Casson (1974), 205.

{page 100}

and in a crowded room at night one had only to stretch out a hand to appropriate something from another's baggage. If an inn was isolated and the bandits numerous, they did not hesitate to attack it.154

Each town, of course, had its magistrates who were responsible for public order, and who carried out their duty through servants of the court.155 Only the wealthy, however, could be elected to municipal offices. In smaller towns, therefore, office circulated among the dominant families, who effectively ran such towns in their own interest, which could of course be directed by public demonstrations. As F. Millar notes, 'The cities ran themselves. Or rather-and this is one of the most vivid impressions left by the novel [The Metamorphoses of Apuleius]-they were run by a network of local aristocratic families, whose doings, public and private, were the subject of intense observer participation- approbation, curiosity, indignation, incipient violence-on the part of the lower classes of the towns.'156 The latter appear as victims of the violence of the ruling elite, who in this respect had no interest in restraining its own members. The wealthy could rob,157 or murder with impunity.158 If theft from their constitu-tents demanded a victim, any outsider would do.159

This brief and generalized description is valid for that part of the Graeco-Roman world in which Paul was active, namely, the provinces of Syria, Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia. It takes little imagination to visualize the tension set up within him by such an environment. His conversion had made him a follower of Jesus who had given his life for the salvation of humanity. That totally other-directed mode of existence became Paul's ideal. His goal was to make it transparent in and through his own comportment, 'always carrying in the body the dying of Jesus so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our bodies' (2 Cor. 4: io).160 Yet every road he travelled forced him to worry about his personal safety. Every inn he visited obliged him to consider others as potential thieves, at least in so far as he had to take measures to protect the precious tools on which his livelihood depended. Circumstances conspired to push the self to the centre of his consciousness, whereas he wanted to be totally focused on the other. His life became a perpetual struggle against the insidious miasma of egocentricity.

It is in this tension that we find the roots of Paul's concept of Sin. When he says 'all, both Jews and Greeks, are under (the power of) Sin' (Rom. 3:9) he is obviously speaking of something other than personal sinful acts, hence my use of the capital letter in translating hamartia. This inference is confirmed by a

______

154 Apuleius, Metamorphoses 7. 7.

155 Apuleius mentions 'a captain of the night watch' (Metamorphoses 3. 3).

156 (1981), 69.

157 Apuleius, Metamorphoses 9. 35.

158 Ibid. 2. 18.

159 Ibid. 3. 28; 7. 11-2.

160 For furtner details, see my (1990).

{page 101}

series of other texts in which Sin is personified.161 Manifestly Sin in these texts is a symbol or a myth expressive of a world in which individuals were forced to be other than they desired to be; the authentic self was alienated (Rom. 7:20). From his own experience as a travelling missionary, Paul learned that people were not selfish because they chose to be. They were forced to be egocentric in order to survive. Their pattern of behaviour was dictated by irresistible societal pressures. They were controlled by a force greater than any individual, namely the value system which had developed within their society. The power of system became clear to Paul in the difficulty he experienced in being true to himself as the model of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). Hence his anguished cry, 'Who is not weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I do not burn with anger?' (2 Cor. 11:29).

______ 161 See Ch. 13, 'Sin, Law, and Death'.