I. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

A. Apocryphal Acts of St. Paul

Professor Schmidt has published a photographic copy, a transcription, a German translation, and a commentary of a Coptic papyrus composed of about 2000 fragments, which he has classified, juxtaposed, and deciphered at a cost of infinite labour ("Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift Nr. 1", Leipzig, 1904, and "Zusatze" etc., Leipzig, 1905). Most critics, whether Catholic (Duchesne, Bardenhewer, Ehrhard etc.), or Protestant (Zahn, Harnack, Corssen etc.), believe that these are real "Acta Pauli", although the text edited by Schmidt, with its very numerous gaps, represents but a small portion of the original work. This discovery modified the generally accepted ideas concerning the origin, contents, and value of these apocryphal Acts, and warrants the conclusion that three ancient compositions which have reached us formed an integral part of the "Acta Pauli" viz. the "Acta Pauli et Theclae", of which the best edition is that of Lipsius, ("Acta Apostolorum apocrypha", Leipzig, 1891, 235-72), a "Martyrium Pauli" preserved in Greek and a fragment of which also exists in Latin (op.. cit., 104-17), and a letter from the Corinthians to Paul with the latter's reply, the Armenian text of which was preserved (cf. Zahn, "Gesch. des neutest. Kanons", II, 592-611), and the Latin discovered by Berger in 1891 (d. Harnack, "Die apokryphen Briefe des Paulus an die Laodicener und Korinther", Bonn, 1905). With great sagacity Zahn anticipated this result with regard to the last two documents, and the manner in which St. Jerome speaks of the periodoi Pauli et Theclae (De viris ill., vii) might have permitted the same surmise with regard to the first.

Another consequence of Schmidt's discovery is no less interesting. Lipsius maintained -- and this was hitherto the common opinion -- that besides the Catholic "Acts" there formerly existed Gnostic "Acts of Paul", but now everything tends to prove that the latter never existed. In fact Origen quotes the "Acta Pauli" twice as an estimable writing ("In Joann.", xx, 12; "De princip.", II, i, 3); Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, iii, 5; XXV, 4) places them among the books in dispute, such as the "Shepherd" of Hermas, the "Apocalypse of Peter", the "Epistle of Barnabas", and the "Teaching of the Apostles". The stichometry of the "Codex Claromontanus" (photograph in Vigouroux, "Dict. de la Bible", II, 147) places them after the canonical books. Tertullian and St. Jerome, while pointing out the legendary character of this writing, do not attack its orthodoxy. The precise purpose of St. Paul's correspondence with the Corinthians which formed part of the "Acts", was to oppose the Gnostics, Simon and Cleobius. But there is no reason to admit the existence of heretical "Acts" which have since been hopelessly lost, for all the details given by ancient authors are verified in the "Acts" which have been recovered or tally well with them. The following is the explanation of the confusion: The Manicheans and Priscillianists had circulated a collection of five apocryphal "Acts", four of which were tainted with heresy, and the fifth were the "Acts of Paul". The "Acta Pauli" owing to this unfortunate association are suspected of heterodoxy by the more recent authors such as Philastrius (De haeres., 88) and Photius (Cod., 114). Tertullian (De baptismo, 17) and St. Jerome (De vir. ill., vii) denounce the fabulous character of the apocryphal "Acts" of Paul, and this severe judgment is amply confirmed by the examination of the fragments published by Schmidt. It is a purely imaginative work in which improbability vies with absurdity. The author, who was acquainted with the canonical Acts of the Apostles, locates the scene in the places really visited by St. Paul (Antioch, Iconium, Myra, Perge, Sidon, Tyre, Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, Rome), but for the rest he gives his fancy free rein. His chronology is absolutely impossible. Of the sixty-five persons he names, very few are known and the part played by these is irreconcilable with the statements of the canonical "Acts". Briefly, if the canonical "Acts" are true the apocryphal "Acts" are false. This, however, does not imply that none of the details have historical foundation, but they must be confirmed by an independent authority.

B. Chronology

If we admit according to the almost unanimous opinion of exegetes that Acts, xv, and Gal., ii, 1-10, relate to the same fact it will be seen that an interval of seventeen years-or at least sixteen, counting incomplete years as accomplished-elapsed between the conversion of Paul and the Apostolic council, for Paul visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal., i, 18) and returned after fourteen years for the meeting held with regard to legal observances (Gal., ii, 1: "Epeita dia dekatessaron eton"). It is true that some authors include the three years prior to the first visit in the total of fourteen, but this explanation seems forced. On the other hand, twelve or thirteen years elapsed between the Apostolic council and the end of the captivity, for the captivity lasted nearly five years (more than two years at Caesarea, Acts, xxiv, 27, six months travelling, including the sojourn at Malta, and two years at Rome, Acts, xxviii, 30); the third mission lasted not less than four years and a half (three of which were spent at Ephesus, Acts, xx, 31, and one between the departure from Ephesus and the arrival at Jerusalem, I Cor., xvi, 8; Acts, xx, 16, and six months at the very least for the journey to Galatia, Acts, xviii, 23); while the second mission lasted not less than three years (eighteen months for Corinth, Acts, xviii, 11, and the remainder for the evangelization of Galatia, Macedonia, and Athens, Acts, xv, 36-xvii, 34). Thus from the conversion to the end of the first captivity we have a total of about twenty-nine years. Now if we could find a fixed point that is a synchronism between a fact in the life of Paul and a certainly dated event in profane history, it would be easy to reconstruct the Pauline chronology. Unfortunately this much wished-for mark has not yet been indicated with certainty, despite the numerous attempts made by scholars, especially in recent times. It is of interest to note even the abortive attempts, because the discovery of an inscription or of a coin may any day transform an approximate date into an absolutely fixed point. These are the meeting of Paul with Sergius Paulus, Proconsul of Cyprus, about the year 46 (Acts, xiii, 7), the meeting at Corinth with Aquila and Priscilla, who had been expelled from Rome, about 51 (Acts, xviii, 2), the meeting with Gallio, Proconsul of Achaia, about 53 (Acts, xviii, 12), the address of Paul before the Governor Felix and his wife Drusilla about 58 (Acts, xxiv, 24). All these events, as far as they may be assigned approximate dates, agree with the Apostle's general chronology but give no precise results. Three synchronisms, however, appear to afford a firmer basis:

(1) The occupation of Damascus by the ethnarch of King Aretas and the escape of the Apostle three years after his conversion (II Cor., xi, 32-33; Acts, ix, 23-26). -- Damascene coins bearing the effigy of Tiberius to the year 34 are extant, proving that at that time the city belonged to the Romans. It is impossible to assume that Aretas had received it as a gift from Tiberius, for the latter, especially in his last years, was hostile to the King of the Nabataeans whom Vitellius, Governor of Syria, was ordered to attack (Joseph., "Ant.", XVIII, v, 13); neither could Aretas have possessed himself of it by force for, besides the unlikelihood of a direct aggression against the Romans, the expedition of Vitellius was at first directed not against Damascus but against Petra. It has therefore been somewhat plausibly conjectured that Caligula, subject as he was to such whims, had ceded it to him at the time of his accession (10 March, 37). As a matter of fact nothing is known of imperial coins of Damascus dating from either Caligula or Claudius. According to this hypothesis St. Paul's conversion was not prior to 34, nor his escape from Damascus and his first visit to Jerusalem, to 37.

(2) Death of Agrippa, famine in Judea, mission of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to bring thither the alms from the Church of Antioch (Acts, xi, 27 -- xii, 25). -- Agrippa died shortly after the Pasch (Acts, xii, 3, 19), when he was celebrating in Caesarea solemn festivals in honour of Claudius's recent return from Britain, in the third year of his reign, which had begun in 41(Josephus, "Ant.", XIX, vii, 2). These combined facts bring us to the year 44, and it is precisely in this year that Orosius (Hist., vii, 6) places the great famine which desolated Judea. Josephus mentions it somewhat later, under the procurator Tiberius Alexander (about 46), but it is well known that the whole of Claudius's reign was characterized by poor harvests (Suet., "Claudius", 18) and a general famine was usually preceded by a more or less prolonged period of scarcity. It is also possible that the relief sent in anticipation of the famine foretold by Agabus (Acts, xi, 28, 29) preceded the appearance of the scourge or coincided with the first symptoms of want. On the other hand, the synchronism between the death of Herod and the mission of Paul can only be approximate, for although the two facts are closely connected in the Acts, the account of the death of Agrippa may be a mere episode intended to shed light on the situation of the Church of Jerusalem about the time of the arrival of the delegates from Antioch. In any case, 45 seems to be the most satisfactory date.

(3) Replacing of Felix by Festus two years after the arrest to Paul (Acts, xxiv, 27). -- Until recently chronologists commonly fixed this important event, in the year 60-61. Harnack, 0. Holtzmann, and McGiffert suggest advancing it four or five years for the following reasons: (1) In his "Chronicon", Eusebius places the arrival of Festus in the second year of Nero (October, 55-October, 56, or if, as is asserted, Eusebius makes the reigns of the emperors begin with the September after their accession, September, 56-September, 57). But it must be borne in mind that the chroniclers being always obliged to give definite dates, were likely to guess at them, and it may be that Eusebius for lack of definite information divided into two equal parts the entire duration of the government of Felix and Festus. (2) Josephus states (Ant., XX, viii, 9) that Felix having been recalled to Rome and accused by the Jews to Nero, owed his safety only to his brother Pallas who was then high in favour. But according to Tacitus (Annal., XIII, xiv-xv), Palles was dismissed shortly before Britannicus celebrated his fourteenth anniversary, that is, in January, 55. These two statements are irreconcilable; for if Pallas was dismissed three months after Nero's accession (13 October, 54) he could not have been at the summit of his power when his brother Felix, recalled from Palestine at the command of Nero about the time of Pentecost, arrived at Rome. Possibly Pallas, who after his dismissal retained his wealth and a portion of his influence, since he stipulated that his administration should not be subjected to an investigation, was able to be of assistance to his brother until 62 when Nero, to obtain possession of his goods, Nero had him poisoned.

The advocates of a later date bring forward the following reasons: (1) Two years before the recall of Felix, Paul reminded him that he had been for many years judge over the Jewish nation (Acts, xxiv, 10-27). This can scarcely mean less than six or seven years, and as, according to Josephus who agrees with Tacitus, Felix was named procurator of Judea in 52, the beginning of the captivity would fall in 58 or 59. It is true that the argument loses its strength if it be admitted with several critics that Felix before being procurator had held a subordinate position in Palestine. (2) Josephus (Ant., XX, viii, 5-8) places under Nero everything that pertains to the government of Felix, and although this long series of events does not necessarily require many years it is evident that Josephus regarded the government of Felix as coinciding for the most part with the reign of Nero, which began on 13 October, 54. In fixing as follows the chief dates in the life of Paul all certain or probable data seem to be satisfactorily taken into account: Conversion, 35; first visit to Jerusalem, 37; sojourn at Tarsus, 37-43; apostolate at Antioch, 43-44; second visit to Jerusalem, 44 or 45; first mission, 45-49; third visit to Jerusalem, 49 or 50; second mission, 50-53; (I and II Thessalonians), 52; fourth visit to Jerusalem, 53; third mission, 53-57; (I and II Corinthians; Galatians), 56; (Romans), 57; fifth visit to Jerusalem, arrest, 57; arrival of Festus, departure for Rome, 59; captivity at Rome, 60-62; (Philemon; Colossians; Ephesians; Philippians), 61; second period of activity, 62-66; (I Timothy; Titus), second arrest, 66; (II Timothy), martyrdom, 67. (See Turner, "Chronology of the N. T." in Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible" Hönicke, "Die Chronologie des Lebens des Ap. Paulus", Leipzig, 1903.

Next Page (2/3)

[ Go Back ]

Planetpreterist.com