PAU

a copy of the original model as He 8' RV. See, for a full examination of the different passages, Hastings' DB, s.v. A. E. S. Kennedy.

PAU.— See Pai.

PAUL THE APOSTLE.— 1. The Authohities.— Before discussing the life and teaching of St. Paul, we may consider what material we have at our dis-posal for determining the facts. We have a history (the Acts of the Apostles) and a collection of Epistles, which have been judged by most or by many scholars to be 1st cent, writings, and to be by St. Luke and St. Paul respectively. Of the Epistles we may, however, set aside the anonymous one to the Hebrews, which the Eastern Fathers generally considered to be St. Paul's, but which is now recognized by almost all scholars not to be the work of that Apostle himself. It is even denied by many that it belongs to the immediate Pauline circle at all. We may also put aside the Apocryphal Acts of Paid and Theda, which, though it may include some genuine 1st cent, information, is clearly a romance of a later age. We have thus left the canonical Acts and 13 Epistles. The genuineness of these is con-sidered under the separate articles in this Dictionary, but we may here briefly summarize the results of critical investigation with regard to them.

1. The Tubingen theory. — F. 0. Baur, the founder of the Tabingen School (1792-1860), maintained that only four, called by him 'principal,' Epistles were really St. Paul's (Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal.), and that the rest, as also Acts, were not genuine. From the 'principal' Epistles, and from a clue in the 2nd cent. pseudo-Clemen-tine literature, he gathered that there were originally two bitterly opposed factions in the Church, Jewish and Gentile, headed respectively by St. Peter and St. Paul. Mainly because this controversy is not found in the other Epistles, but also from other minor con-siderations, he held that the rest of the 'Pauline' literature and Acts were writings with a purpose or 'tendency,' issued in the 2nd cent, in order to promote the idea of a Catholic Church, and to reconcile the contending parties. Baur has few, if any, followers now. It has been seen that it is bad criticism to make a theory on insecure grounds, and then to reject all the literature which contradicts it.

2. The Dutch School. — We may thus name a school of writers which has lately arisen, as their chief strength is in Holland. Prof, van Manen has popularized their teaching in Encyc. Bibl. (.e.g. artt. ' Old-Christian Litera-ture,' 'Paul,' 'Philemon,' 'Philippians'; see also art. ' Acts' by Schmiedel). According to this school, all the 13 Epistles and the Acts are ' pseudepigraphic,' though some fragments of 1st cent, works, such as 'Acts of Paul' and ' Acts of Peter,' are embedded in them. The reasons given are that the 13 writings in question are not really epistles intended for definite readers, but are books written in the form of epistles for edification; that there is no trace of the impression which, if genuine, they must have made on those addressed ; tliat St. Paul would not have written to the Romans as he did without knowing them personally; that the large experience and wide field of vision shown in the Epistles were an impossibility at so early a date; that time was required for ' Paulinlsm,' which was a radical reformation of the older Christianity, to spring up; that the problems discussed (the Law and the Gospel, Justification, Election, etc.) did not belong to the first age; that per-secution had already arisen, whereas in St. Paul's lifetime, so tar as we know, there had been none; and that the chapters Ro 9-11 presuppose a date later than the Fall of Jerusalem. In a word, the historical back-ground of the Epistles is said to be that of a later age, perhaps a.d. 125-150. The 'Pauline' literature sprang from the 'heretical' circles of Syria or Asia Minor. Marcion was the first (van Manen alleges) to make an authoritative group of Pauline Epistles; and they were

PAUL THE APOSTLE

not much approved by Irenseus or Tertullian, who, however, used them to vanquish the Gnostics and Marcionltes with their own weapons.

One is tempted to ask. Was, then, St. Paul a myth? No, it is replied, he was a historical person, and the little that we know about him can be gathered from the older material (such as the 'we' sections of Acts) which is included in our present literature. It is enough to reply to the above reasoning that the objec-tion already made to the Tubingen theory applies here with increased force; no criticism can be more un-scientific than that which makes up its mind a priori what St. Paul ought to have done and said, and then judges the genuineness of the literature by that standard. And such a deluge of forgery or ' pseudepigraphy ' in the 2nd cent, (for the Epistles of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp must also, according to this school, go by the board) is absolutely incredible.

3. English and German criticism. — Returning to better-balanced views about the literature, we may remark that scholars in this country are more and more disposed to treat Acts and all the 13 Epistles as genuine, and that in Germany the tendency is in the same direc-tion, though it does not go quite so far. Thus Harnack (Luke the Physician, 1906, Eng. tr. 1907) accepts Acts as Lukan, and JUlicher (Encyc. Bibl.) believes Colos-sians to be St. Paul's, though he is uncertain about Ephesians. The Pastoral Epistles and 2 Thessalonians are generally, but not universally, accepted in this country; they are looked on much more doubtfully in Germany, but the former are usually recognized there as containing a Pauline nucleus.

4. The thirteen Epistles. — It appears that St. Paul wrote other letters than these; references to lost ones are found, probably, in 2 Th 3" and 1 Co 5». The thirteen which remain may be divided into four groups. These are all well attested by early Christian writers, and (as van Manen remarks) the Pastoral Epistles have as good external testimony as the rest. By way of example (to take but a few instances), it may be noted that Ignatius (c. 110 a.d.), Polycarp (c. Ill a.d.), and Justin (c. 150 A.D.) use 2 Thessalonians; Clement of Rome (c. 95 a.d.) uses 1 Corinthians and probably Ephesians; Ignatius certainly uses Ephesians; Polycarp uses almost all the thirteen, including the Pastorals. In fact the external evidence is precise; and it would require convincing arguments indeed from internal evidence to overthrow it. Marcion (c. 140 a.d.) in-cluded all these Epistles except the Pastorals in his Apostolicon; but he freely excised what he did not like in them, as Tertullian (adv. Marc, e.g. v. 17 f.) tells us.

(a) First Group (1 and 2 Thess.). These were written from Corinth 52 or 53 a.d. ; the early date is seen from the fact that the writer expected the Second Advent to be in his lifetime (1 Th 4i»-is), and this is a real sign of authenticity, for a forger would never have put into St. Paul's mouth, after his death, the words 'we that are alive' (v.''). A possible misconception is rectified by St. Paul in 2 Th Z"-, for he says that the ' man of sin' must be manifested before the Lord comes.

(6) Second Group, Baur's 'principal epistles' (Gal., 1 and 2 Cor., Rom.), marked by the struggle for Gentile liberty and by the assertion of St. Paul's Apostleship, which the Judaizing Christians denied. The contro-versy was evidently dying out when Romans was written, for that Epistle is a calm and reasoned treatise, almost more than a letter (see art. Galatians [Ep. to the], I 4). The early date of these four Epistles is seen from the consideration that, as Gentile Churches spread and the converts multiplied, it must have been found impossible to force the yoke of the Law on them. The controversy on both heads was settled by St. Paul's evangelistic activity; his Apostleship was seen by its fruits.

(c) Third Group, the Epistles of the first Roman captivity (Eph., Ph., Col., Philem.). No really serious

685