Basket Case

[This is the conclusion of my article on Paul’s early career that I began last week. I strongly suggest that you first read that article, if you have not already done so, before continuing with this article.]

Fixing Pauline Chronology

Paul’s mention in Galatians 1:11-24 that “after three years” he traveled to Jerusalem to “visit Cephas” (that is, Peter) is a key piece of information that helps biblical scholars fix the time of Paul’s conversion. The common opinion is that the “three years” are in reference to his conversion and not to his return to Damascus from his sojourn in Arabia. So if we can narrow down the year Paul left Damascus, it would give us an idea of the date of his conversion.

In citing his sufferings as an apostle in 2 Corinthians, Paul refers to a time he escaped Damascus in a basket (11:32-33). This can only be the incident Luke narrates in Acts 9:23-25. Paul tells us this happened when Damascus was under the authority of an ethnarch (sheik of an ethnic group) appointed by King Aretas. Prior to the death of the emperor Tiberius (March 37 CE), Damascus was under Roman rule. Since the Nabatean king Aretas died in 39/40 CE, Paul’s attempted arrest and escape could only have occurred between 37 and 40 CE. Therefore, Paul’s conversion would have been 34-37 CE.

Saint Paul Escapes from Damascus [painting based on a 14th century mosaic in Sicily]. In boasting of the events that show his weakness, Paul mentions his humiliating escape from Damascus by basket. He may be contrasting himself with the honor that would be given to the first Roman soldier to scale the walls of a city under siege.

The confluence of Paul’s visit to Arabia (Nabatea) and his subsequent flight from the Nabatean ethnarch in Damascus has led many scholars to wonder if Paul got into some trouble in Arabia that required him to flee to the safety of Damascus. According to this theory, after Damascus fell under Nabatean authority, Paul learned of a plot to arrest him and had to flee once more, this time by means of a basket from the city’s wall. If this hypothesis is correct, it would place Paul leaving Damascus shortly after the Nabateans gained control, perhaps late 37 or early 38 CE. This would narrow down the year of Paul’s conversion to 34 or 35 CE.

Saul in Jerusalem

34-35 CE is prior to the recall of Pontius Pilate in late 36 CE. Previously, we speculated that the stoning of Stephen and persecution of the Jerusalem church would have been most likely during the period between the departure of Pilate and the arrival of his successor, Marcellus. But Acts places Saul at the stoning of Stephen and leading the persecution of the Christians in Jerusalem, events that could have only happened before his conversion.

The dating of these two events can be reconciled if we consider that Paul may not have had anything to do with persecuting Christians in Jerusalem. His placement at the scene of Stephen’s execution and subsequent spearheading of a program of persecution may have been dramatic license by Luke. It gives the reader of Acts a narrative thread to follow: from the reconstitution of the Twelve apostles, to the Seven they commission, to the stoning of Stephen – one of the Seven – at the feet of Saul.

As we saw last week, Luke’s explanation of why Saul left Jerusalem for Damascus has issues of historicity. One is reminded of the thoroughly implausible census that Luke provides as the reason for Joseph and Mary to travel from Nazareth to Jerusalem. If Luke wanted to situate Saul in Jerusalem to play up his role as arch-persecutor of the church but it was well-known that his conversion occurred in Damascus, Luke needed to come up with a reason for Saul to travel from Jerusalem to Damascus. A mission from the Sanhedrin to extradite Christians from Damascus to Jerusalem was Luke’s solution.

Paul in Jerusalem

Both Acts and Paul are in agreement that, after leaving Damascus, he travelled to Jerusalem. Acts gives no reason for the visit. Paul says it was to “visit Cephas” (that is, Peter) and he only stayed fifteen days, seeing no other apostle except James the brother of Jesus. The phrase “visit Cephas” could also be translated as “get information from Cephas” and Paul may be intentionally vague here. His visit to Peter was hardly a social call. Undoubtedly, Paul wanted to learn about the historical Jesus to better inform his preaching.

Acts tells us that Saul was treated with suspicion on his arrival in Jerusalem and Barnabas had to introduce him to the apostles. It seems unlikely that three years after his conversion and ministry Paul’s intentions would still be doubted. We previously saw Barnabas in Acts 4:36-37 where he served as a positive example for selling his field and donating the proceeds to the Christian community. We learned in that passage that Barnabas was a native of Cyprus. Like Paul, he was a diaspora Jew and would later become Paul’s travelling companion on his early missionary journeys.

Although Luke reports that Saul angered the local Jewish populace for preaching in Jerusalem, Paul’s itinerary doesn’t allow for that. He insists in Gal 1:22 that he did not do any evangelizing in Judea (“I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea”) although they had heard of how he had formerly persecuted Christians. Paul seems to be going out of his way to stress that he has always been an apostle operating in Gentile territory.

Concluding Comments

Paul is the rare biblical character who provides us first-hand information about himself in his letters. Not only that, but we have additional information on his life from Acts, although as we have seen, that information does not always dovetail with what Paul tells us. Just like many people telling their story, Paul casts himself in the best possible light. Like many writers, Luke employs dramatic license in telling Paul’s story. Critical scholars cannot take either account completely at face value. Even so, we know more about Paul and his life than we do about any other character in either the Old or New Testament.

Better Call Saul

In Acts 9:1-31 Luke presents us with the story of Saul’s conversion. Paul also discusses his calling and his travels on a few occasions in his letters, giving us the rare opportunity to compare Luke’s account with Paul’s own.

Luke’s Version of Saul’s Conversion

Luke actually presents three versions of Saul’s conversion, one in third-person narration in Acts 9 and the twice more (22:1-16; 26:9-18) in the form of Paul’s speeches. There are some minor differences in all three accounts, but the basic core is the same: Saul was traveling to Damascus with letters of authority from the Sanhedrin to round up Christians there and return them to Jerusalem. As he approached the city, he was struck by a blinding light and heard the voice of Jesus say, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

Saul was left blind by the incident for three days until he was healed and baptized by a Damascene disciple named Ananias. Saul began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues and debated the Jews there. “After some time had passed” (v. 23), Saul became aware of a plot by the Jews to kill him and escaped the city by being lowered from the city wall in a basket.

Arriving in Jerusalem, Saul sought out the Christian community there, but no one wanted to have anything to do with him. Barnabas intervened and brought him to the apostles. Saul began preaching the name of Jesus and arguing with the Jewish Hellenists until they, too, sought to kill him. Learning of the plot, the disciples hustled Saul off to Caesarea where he could take a ship back to his hometown of Tarsus. He would remain there until Barnabas found him and brought him to Anitoch (11:25-26).

Was Paul a pedestrian or an equestrian? If you are Catholic, you probably think he got knocked off his horse, but if you are Protestant, you probably think he was just knocked off his feet. Prior to the Renaissance, images featured Paul on foot. The Catholic imagination was fueled by visual images such as this one, but Protestants were influenced by the text of Scripture. (The Conversion of St. Paul [1767] by Nicolas Bernard Lépicié)

The Road to Damascus

Before we contrast Luke’s account with Paul’s, there’s some inconsistency with what we have read so far in Acts. According to Acts, the early Christian community lived largely at peace in Jerusalem until Saul led a program of persecution that caused all but the apostles to flee to Samaria and the Judean countryside. After being sidelined with the mission of Philip the evangelist, we return to the main narrative to find Saul still on the warpath and seeking to persecute Christian disciples in Damascus.

Damascus is 140 miles from Jerusalem and it would have taken Saul about a week to walk there. If Saul wanted to expand his area of operation, there were Christians much closer at hand in Judea, Samaria and Galilee. Traveling all the way to Damascus doesn’t make much sense unless he was attempting to extradite Christians who had escaped from Jerusalem. But, as explained elsewhere, the Jewish Sanhedrin had no authority outside the city of Jerusalem. At most, the letters Saul obtained from the Sanhedrin could only have served as proof he was not acting on his own initiative.

When Saul finally arrived in Damascus, he found a Christian community who took him in and, he immediately began proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God in the synagogues. Presumably he would have been catechized by the local Christians in some form before he began preaching. Although Saul’s reputation as a persecutor of the Jerusalem Christians preceded him, it doesn’t sound like the Damascene Christians had fled his persecution. One gets the impression from all this the Christian community in Damascus was well-settled long before Saul’s arrival.

Bottom line: Luke’s version of events seems somewhat contrived.

Paul’s Account

How does Luke’s version square with what Paul describes in his letters? Although Paul speaks several times of his vision of the risen Christ which called him from life as a persecutor of the church to become an apostle to the Gentiles, he never provides any details of the experience.

However, Paul gives an account of his early career in Gal 1:11-24. He is eager to assert that the gospel he received was unmediated by any human authority (vv. 16-17). After his call, he did not confer with any local disciples or the apostles in Jerusalem. Instead, he “went away at once” to Arabia and only afterwards returned to Damascus. From this we can infer that his conversion experience occurred in Damascus, matching what we are told in Acts.

Paul’s account doesn’t leave any room for the role Ananias played in healing and baptizing him. Given the importance of baptism as an initiation into the Christian community, it seems certain that Paul would have been baptized at some point, so we have to take his insistence that he “did not confer with any human being” with a grain of salt. Having already learned enough of the basics of the faith through his arguments with Hellenist Christians, perhaps Paul did not feel the need to be formally catechized but he must have had some contact with the local Christian community in Damascus before starting his ministry.

Into Arabia

More interesting is Luke’s failure to mention Paul’s sojourn in Arabia. “Arabia” is generally understood as the Nabatean Kingdom, across the Jordan from Israel. Paul never explains what he was doing there or how long he was there before returning to Damascus, so it is easy to see why Luke would have left that out, even if he had known about it.

Why go to Nabatea at all? For prayer and reflection prior to beginning his ministry? Perhaps. Did he seek to start a ministry there? Then why not begin in Damascus? If, as I suspect, the historical Paul had been engaged in persecuting Christians in and around Damascus rather than Jerusalem, he may have thought he would get a more open-minded hearing in a region where he didn’t carry as much baggage.

Most likely, things didn’t go well in Nabatea and Paul returned to Damascus where he must have known he would receive a chilly reception from both the Christian and Jewish communities. But Paul apparently considered it preferable to remaining in Nabatea. And, as we’ll see next week, once Nabatea gained some control over Damascus, Paul was threatened with arrest and had to flee once more. His first effort as an evangelist in Nabatea must really have turned out badly.

If all this supposition is close to the truth, it is little wonder Paul doesn’t say anything more about his journey into Arabia.

[To be continued next week.]