PAUL
573
PAUL
distance between the two basilicas (about five miles)
rendered the double ceremony too exhausting, espe-
cially at that season of the year. Thus arose the pre-
vailing custom of transferring to the next day (30
June) the Commemoration of St. Paul. The feast of
the Conversion of St. Paul (2.5 January) is of compara-
tively recent origin. There is reason for believing
that the day was first observed to mark the translation
of the relics of St. Paul at Rome, for so it appears in
the Hieronymian Martyrology. It is unknown to the
Greek Church (Dowden, "The Church Year and
Kalendar", Cambridge, 1910, 69; cf. Duchesne, "Ori-
gines du culte Chretien", Paris, 1898, 265-72; Mc-
Clure, "Christian Worship", London, 1903, 277-81).
F. Physical and Moral Portrait of St. Paul. — We
know from Eusebius (Hist, eccl., VII, 18) that even
in his time there existed paintings representing Christ
and the Apostles Peter and Paul. Paul's features
have been preserved in three ancient monuments:
(1) A diptych which dates from not later than the fourth century (Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul", 1874, frontispiece of Vol. I and Vol. II, 210).
(2) A large medallion found in the cemetery of Domi- tilla, representing the Apostles Peter and Paul (Op. cit., II, 411). (3) A glass dish in the British Museum, depicting the same Apostles (Farrar, "Life and Work of St. Paul", 1891, 896). We have also the concor- dant descriptions of the "Acta Pauli et Thecla;", of Pseudo-Lucian in Philopatris, of Malalas (Chronogr., x), and of Nicephorus (Hist, eccl.. Ill, 37). Paul was short of stature; the Pseudo-Chrysostom calls him "the man of three cubits " {ivdpuinos Tpiinjxvs) ; he was broad- shouldered, somewhat bald, with slightly aquiline nose, closely-knit eyebrows, thick, greyish beard, fair com- plexion, and a pleasing and affable manner. He was afflicted with a malady which is difficult to diagnose (cf. Menzies, "St. Paul's Infirmity" in the "Exposi- tory Times", July and Sept., 1904), but despite this painful and humiliating infirmity (II Cor., .xii, 7-9; Gal., iv, 13-14) and although his bearing was not im- pressive (II Cor., X, 10), Paul must undoubtedly have been possessed of great physical strength to have sus- tained so long such superhuman labours (II Cor., xi, 23-29). Pseudo-Chrysostom, "In princip. apostol. Petrum et Paulum " (in P. G., LIX, 494-95), considers (hat he died at the age of sixty-eight after having served the Lord for thirty-five years. The moral por- trait is more difficult to draw because it is full of con- trasts. Its elements will be found: in Lewin, op. cit., II, xi, 410-35 (Paul's Person and Character); in Far- rar, Op. cit.. Appendix, Excursus I; and especially in Newman, "Sermons preached on Various Occa- sions", vii, viii.
III. Theology op St. Paul. — A. Paul and Christ. — This question has passed through two dis- tinct phases. According to the principal followers of the Tubingen School, the Apostle had but a vague knowledge of the life and teaching of the historical Christ and even disdained such knowledge as inferior and useless. Their only support is the misinterpreted text: " Et si cognovimus secundum carnem Christum, sed nunc jam novimus" (II Cor., v, 16). The oppo- sition noted in this text is not between the historical and the glorified Christ, but between the Messias such as the unbelieving Jews represented Him, such perhaps as he was preached by certain Judaizers, and the Messias as He manifested Himself in His death and Resurrection, as He had been confes.sed by the con- verted Paul. It is neither admissible nor probable that Paul would be uninterested in the life and preach- ing of Him, Whom he loved passionately. Whom he constantly held up for the imitation of his neophytes, and Whose spirit he boasted of having. It is incred- ible that he would not question on this subject eye- witnesses, such as Barnabas, Silas, or the future his- torians of Christ, Sts. Mark and Luke, with whom he was so long associated. Careful examination of this
subject has brought out the three following conclu-
sions concerning which there is now general agree-
ment: (1) There are in St. Paul more allusions to the
life and teachings of Christ than would be suspected
at first sight, and the casual way in which they are
made shows that the Apostle knew more on the subject
than he had the occasion or the wish to tell. (2)
These allusions are more frequent in St. Paul than
in all the other writings of the New Testament, except
the Gospels. (3) From Apostolic times there existed
a calechesis, treating among other things the life and
teachings of Christ, and as all neophytes were sup-
posed to possess a copy it was not necessary to refer
thereto save occasionally and in passing.
The second phase of the question is closely con- nected with the first. The same theologians, who maintain that Paul was indifferent to the earthly life and teaching of Christ, deliberately exaggerate his originality and influence. According to them Paul was the creator of theology, the founder of the Church, the preacher of asceticism, the defender of the sacra- ments and of the ecclesiastical system, the opponent of the religion of love and liberty which Christ came to announce to the world. If, to do him honour, he is called the second founder of Christianity, this must be a degenerate and altered Christianity since it was at least partially opposed to the primitive Christianity. Paul is thus made responsible for every antipathy to modern thought in traditional Christianity. This is to a great extent the origin of the "Back to Christ" movement, the strange wanderings of which we are now witnessing. The chief reason for returning to Christ is to escape Paul, the originator of dogma, the theolo- gian of the faith. The cry "Zuriick zu Jesu" which has resounded in Germany for thirty years, is inspired by the ulterior motive, "Los von Paulus". The problem is: Was Paul's relation to Christ that of a disciple to his master? or was he absolutely auto- didactic, independent alikeof the Gospel of Christ and the preaching of the Twelve? It must be admitted that most of the papers published shed fittle light on the subject. However, the discussions have not been useless, for they have shown that the most char- acteristic Pauline doctrines, such as justifying faith, the redeeming death of Christ, the universality of salvation, are in accord with the writings of the first Apostles, from which they are derived. Jtilicher in particular has pointed out that Paul's Christology, which is more exalted than that of his companions in the apostolate, was never the object of controversy, and that Paul was not conscious of being singular in this respect from the other heralds of the Gospel. Cf. Morgan, "Back to Christ" in "Diet, of Christ and the Go.spels", I, 61-67; Sanday, "Paul", loc. cit., II, 886-92; Feine, "Jesus Christus und Paulus" (1902); Goguel, "L'apotre Paul et J^sus-Christ " (Paris, 1904); Jiihcher, "Paulus und Jesus" (1907).
B. The Root Idea of St. Paid's Theology. — Several modern authors consider that theodicy is at the base, centre, and summit of Pauline theology. "The apostle's doctrine is theocentric, not in reality anthro- pocentric. What is styled his 'metaphysics' holds for Paul the immediate and sovereign fact of the universe; God, as he conceives Him, is all in all to his reason and heart alike" (Findlay in Hastings, "Diet, of the Bible", III, 718). Stevens begins the exposition of his "Paufine Theology" with a chapter entitled "The doctrine of God". Sabatier (L'apotre Paul, 1896, 297) also considers that "the last word of Pauline theology is: God all in all", and he makes the idea of God the crown of Paul's theological edifice. But these authors have not reflected that though the idea of God occupies so large a place in the teaching of the Apostle, whose thought is deeply religious like that of all his compatriots, it is not characteristic of him, nor does it distinguish him from his compan- ions in the apostolate nor even from contemporary
