Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

conversion? It is generally assumed that Paul's conversion was immediately after Stephen's death. But it might not have been so. Let us see:

Luke says (Acts 8: 3): "Saul made great havoc of the church, entering into every house and haling men and women, committed them to prison." This kind of persecution, against so large a company, in so great a city as Jerusalem was, demands a period of some length.

Luke now relates how, during this fury of Saul, the Christians, fleeing before him from Jerusalem, were scattered abroad to Samaria; how Philip founded a church in Samaria; how Peter and John, by the direction of the apostles, went there, imparted the Holy Spirit to the baptized, and then returned to Jerusalem; how Philip, having come to Gaza, there converted the eunuch of queen Candace of Ethiopia, and afterward going about, preached the gospel, and finally came to Cæsarea. That all this took place during the persecution by Saul, is evident from Acts 9: 1, where Luke, returning to Saul, says: "And Saul yet (Gr. Ti) breathing out threatenings and slaughter, went to the high-priest and desired of him letters to Damascus," etc.

Therefore after he had first satiated his rage against the Christians in Jerusalem, i. e. after a considerable time, in which the events mentioned in chapter wiii. had occurred, Saul began his journey to Damascus. On his way, he was converted to the Lord. This event could not, therefore, well have taken place before A. D. 39.

Some other striking points here deserve consideration : 1. When Saul was present at the murder of Stephen, he was a young man. While a youth, as he states, he was a scholar of Gamaliel. Now since Gamaliel, as is evident from Acts vi., was a decided opposer to all persecutions of the disciples and their followers, it is plain that Saul, when he began to rage against the Christians, had not been, for some time past, a pupil of Gamaliel.

2. He could not have been so very young at that time. To say nothing of the fact that Ananias, in Acts 9: 13, calls him a man, it is not probable that the high-priest would have

entrusted such weighty and extended authority to the hands of a mere youth. The word used in Luke (Gr. veaviav) must therefore designate a young man.

3. Luke relates that Paul, after his first journey to Jerusalem, which he undertook three years after his conversion, Gal. i., went to Tarsus (Acts 9: 30). Thence Barnabas brought him to Antioch, where he remained a year (Acts 11: 25, 26). During this abode there, he went with Barnabas to Jerusalem, to carry thither the alms of the church of Antioch, verse 30. This journey took place at the time of the imprisonment of Peter by Herod (as we shall hereafter see), during which, Paul and Barnabas were in Jerusalem (Acts 12: 25); and since this imprisonment was in A. D. 45 (as we shall by and by show), the journey was in this year, a. D. 45. Should we now assume, with Baronius and Natalis Alexander, that Paul was already converted in a. D. 34, and so for the first time went to Jerusalem in A. D. 38, and thence travelled to Tarsus, we must also assume, that from A. D. 37 or 38 up to A. D. 44, when Barnabas brought him to Antioch, i. e. six or seven years, Paul had sat down inactive in Tarsus; a supposition which no reasonable person will make. But if Paul's conversion be placed in a. D. 39, then his first journey to Jerusalem was in A. D. 42, the same year in which he went to Tarsus, whence Barnabas brought him to Antioch in A. D. 44, and thence they went to Jerusalem in A. D. 45, and were there during Peter's imprisonment. Thus everything harmonizes admirably. Therefore Paul's conversion was not before a. D. 39.1

It else matters not whether Paul's conversion be placed in A. D. 34 or 39. For if by the first supposition the possibility is gained that Peter might have travelled to Antioch in A. D. 38, yet from this possibility the reality of such a journey by no means follows; and as, according to those well-known views which rest on the statements of Eusebius, Peter must have gone to Jerusalem in the second year of Claudius, i. e. in a. D. 42, so the seven years of his pretended bishopric at Antioch can in no wise be deduced therefrom. Besides, that pretended journey to Antioch is so clearly a fiction that it throughout contradicts the Holy Scriptures, as we shall hereafter see.

§ 7.

We have now obtained a basis for the investigation. In the first chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul says that three years after his conversion he, for the first time, went up to Jerusalem to show himself to the apostles, and especially to Peter. This journey Luke also relates Acts 9: 26-30. It took place accordingly in A. d. 42. fore in the above named year, Peter had not yet gone away from Jerusalem; the care of the church fixed him continuously to this central point of the Christian church. We now proceed further:

There

Directly after Paul's departure from Jerusalem (Acts 9: 26 -30), Luke goes on, vs. 31, 32: "then had the churches rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied. And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda." Peter's journey, therefore, embraced the three countries of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, i. e. the whole of Palestine up to the Jordan. So we find the apostle at Lydda, verse 32, where he healed Æneas; then at Joppa, 36-42, where he raised Tabitha from the dead. Here "he tarried many days," and in consequence of a vision he went to Cæsarea, to Cornelius, whom he received, with a number of others, into the Christian fellowship; afterwards he returned to Jerusalem (Acts 11: 1). If we take into view the considerable extent of the provinces over which Peter travelled, and his frequent long abode in particular cities, as for example at Joppa, we must suppose that this journey required at least a whole year, and that therefore Peter could not have returned to Jerusalem (Acts 11: 1), before the end of A. D. 43. Here, too, we find him in A. D. 45. For in the 12th chapter Luke relates the killing of James, and Peter's imprisonment by king Herod, Herod's departure for Cæsarea directly after Peter's deliverance, and his sudden death there, which, as is well known, occurred in the fourth year of Claudius, and so in a. d. 45.

Therefore in A. D. 45, Peter had not yet come to Antioch, -to say nothing of his coming to Rome; he had not even crossed the boundaries of Palestine. The opinion, then, that Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius, i. e. in A. D. 42, is proved to be wholly false. It is likewise false if we place Paul's conversion in A. D. 34, and allow that Peter was seven years bishop at Antioch; for, even then, he could not have gone to Rome before A. D. 44.

§ 8. Was Peter Bishop of Antioch?

We have proved that Peter did not come out of Palestine up to A. D. 45. How could he, now, have been bishop of Antioch since A. D. 37, and of Rome since A. D. 42? Peter's bishopric at Antioch belongs, at all events, to the numerous idle fables which ambition or credulity have invented. Let us examine it more closely :

1. We have seen that, during the persecution by Saul, the gospel was first preached beyond Jerusalem by the disciples scattered abroad, and especially by Philip; and indeed, according to Acts 8: 1, first of all in Judea and Samaria. According to Acts 9: 31, we likewise find churches in Galilee, and Peter, too, had already gone there. that this journey lasted at least a year. view of Bellarmin, Baronius, and Natalis Alexander (who place Peter's departure to Antioch in A. D. 38, and certainly after the completion of this circuit), those numerous churches were already founded in a. D. 37, i. e. within three years.

We have seen, also,
According to the

Now the progress could not well have been so rapid, especially among the Jews. Besides, this too is to be considered: Peter, after that circuit, returned again to Jerusalem (Acts 11:2). How do these writers know that he took a journey, after, to Antioch? It is a mere arbitrary assumption of their own.

2. The preaching of the gospel to the Jews held the first place; not till afterwards, it came to the heathen. First on this circuit, which followed Paul's first visit to Jerusalem (and hence, according to the view of these authors, first in A. D. 38), was it revealed to Peter that the gospel must like

wise be preached to the Gentiles. The Jewish Christians took it ill of Peter that he had baptized Cornelius (Acts 11: 2, 3). Can we now suppose that Peter already, in a. D. 38, had left Palestine, i. e. the Jews, and turned to the Gentiles - he who (Kar' çoxnv) preeminently was the apostle of the circumcision? We believe that such a supposition is destitute of any foundation.

3. The church of Antioch was formed of Gentile Christians, as we are expressly told in Acts 11: 19, 20. It did not, therefore, belong to the circle of Peter's calling. Besides, it was not founded at all by Peter: in Acts 11: 19, etc., it is related: "Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned unto the Lord." There is no mention at all of Peter. It is expressly said, " men of Cyprus and Cyrene," and therefore not Peter, had first preached the gospel at Antioch.

To this church (the founding of which took place, according to the reckoning of Baronius, etc. in A. D. 34 or 35, because it happened soon after Stephen's death, placed by them in A. D. 34), the church of Jerusalem, Luke states Acts 11: 22, etc. sent, not Peter, but Barnabas. He (Barnabas), then, was the proper founder and organizer of the church at Antioch, and if any one is to be named a first bishop, it is he, and not Peter.

66

"And in those days," Luke directly proceeds to say, came prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch." And among them was Agabus (verses 27, 28). Would Luke, who mentions the arrival of these prophets, have omitted to mention the arrival of Peter happening, as pretended, precisely at this time, the man who founded the church of Antioch, and had set up in it his first Episcopal chair? We trust that no one will admit so absurd an opinion.

« AnteriorContinuar »