Table of Contents
- How Acts Mirrors the Clementine Homilies
- Point Two: Paul Lost A Trial Before Jewish Christians.
- Point Three: The Lion represents Jewish Christians
- Point Four: Escaping With Some Legitimacy In Tact is Paul's Meaning
- Point Five: The Vision Account in Acts 26 Solves The Problem Posed By The Vision Account in Acts 22
- Point Six: Don't The Vision Accounts of Acts 22 and 26 Conflict?
- Point Seven: Why Make A Contradictory Account of the Vision Experience?
- Paul's Contradictory Vision Accounts Permit Skepticism About Paul
Parent: JesusWordsOnly
How Acts Mirrors the Clementine Homilies
Point One: Jesus Only Words Are Negative in Acts Chapter 22
- "The Clementine Apocrypha," Anti-Nicene Fathers (ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson; rev'd A. Cleveland Coxe) Vol. VIII (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing Inc., 1994) at 269 et seq. This is available online at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf0861.htm. These Clementine Homilies were part of church history since the 200s, and even were frequently official readings in the early church. They purported to be written by Clement, the bishop at Rome around 96 A.D. Scholars of today claim these letters were written around 200, and included within them the earlier tradition of the Ebionites, such as in this passage. Because they were not apparently written by Clement, in fact, they are now labelled The Pseudo Clementine Homilies.
The main argument in Peter's Clementine speech was that Paul's vision of Jesus involved Jesus only talking negatively to Paul. In fact, Homily 17, chapter 18 is devoted to Peter proving from Scripture that visions of God are how God reveals himself to enemies, not allies. In that context, Peter's point is unmistakable. Paul's vision only contains negative statements from Jesus, invalidating it as a proof of Paul's authority.
Then we will see that the account of Paul's vision given in Acts chapter 22 is exactly what Peter describes in Clementine Homily 17:19. In the Acts 22:7-16 account, the only positive statements come later from a person named Ananias. They do not come from Jesus at all, just as Peter says in this Clementine Homily. Jesus' only words are negative toward Paul, as we discuss in detail below.
Point Two: Paul Lost A Trial Before Jewish Christians.
Consider next that Paul mentions in 2 Timothy chapter 4 having had to give a "first" defense of himself from other Christians and no one came to his defense. This apparently relates to the fact that in (2Tim. 1:15) Paul says all the Christians in Asia ( i.e ., modem Western Turkey, which includes Ephesus) abandoned him. This defense was thus put on inside a church-setting in Asia Minor. The verdict ended up that all Christians in proconsular Asia abandoned him, according to Paul's own words. (2Tim. 1:15). Paul then mentions he still regards he somehow escaped the "mouth of the lion..." at this defense he put on. What did he mean? Paul's words at 2 Timothy 4:14-17 are:
(14) Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord will
render to him according to his works:
(15) of whom do thou also beware; for he greatly withstood our
words. (16) At my first defence no one took my part, but all
forsook me: may it not be laid to their account. (17) But... I was
delivered out of the mouth of the lion. (ASV)
These statements, all read together, point to Paul admitting he was tried by fellow-Christians in Asia Minor (where Ephesus was), he lost and was then forsaken by all those in that region. Yet, then how are we to understand his words "escaped the lion"? Was it by making up the Acts chapter 26 vision account on the spot?
Point Three: The Lion represents Jewish Christians
To understand how Paul "escaped" at this trial among Christians, although he lost, we must identify the lion in (2Tim. 2:17). Paul most likely meant his Jewish-Christian opponents.
While there is conjecture in Jerome's writings that Paul meant Nero when he referred to the lion, Jerome was relying upon an apocryphal account of a Paul-Nero encounter. Nero has no nickname as lion. Jerome does not explain why Paul would have used the label lion for Nero.
The more natural reading is that lion represents the Tribe of Judah, i.e., the Jews. This also fits the historical context. Read this way, (2Tim. 4:17) means Paul felt he somehow escaped the Judaizing Christians. Nevertheless, the verdict in Asia Minor was a severe loss to Paul of all influence in Asia Minor among Christians there. (2 Tim. 1:15.)
Is lion a symbol of Judah? Yes. The lion is historically treated as a symbol of the tribe of Judah. It comes from the Bible. In (Gen. 49:9), Judah is specifically called "a lion's whelp." In (Num. 24:9), the people of Israel are likened to a "lion." This symbol for the Tribe of Judah is repeated in (Rev. 5:3), 5. Thus Paul's reference to the lion in (2Tim. 4:17) is likely a reference to his Jewish-Christian opponents within the church.
23.Jerome conjectures incorrectly that Paul means that he escaped "the lion" Nero. Jerome says that in Paul's first encounter with Nero he dismissed him as harmless. Jerome says lion "clearly [is] indicating Nero as lion on account of his cruelty." (Jerome, Lives of Famous Men, eh. V.) However, Jerome is alluding to the Paul-Seneca correspondence as proof of the Paul-Nero encounter. However, most scholars find good reason to regard those letters as illegitimate, and this encounter as a highly improbable myth. Second, Jerome does not say Nero's nickname was lion, just that the label might fit him and be Paul's intention.
Point Four: Escaping With Some Legitimacy In Tact is Paul's Meaning
How can Paul escape yet lose all support? Peter's attack in the Ebionite account of a trial versus Paul goes to Paul's legitimacy. If in Paul's vision account, Jesus had no positive words for Paul, and we must rely upon Ananias (who is no prophet) to confirm Paul's legitimacy, then Paul loses all legitimacy. Peter's argument in the Clementine Homilies says Paul's authority stands on nothing positive from Jesus. If all we ever had was the Acts chapter 22 vision-account, Peter says Paul stands on nothing from Jesus to confirm Jesus ever had a positive feeling toward Paul.
However, Paul could walk away from a trial he loses on whether he is an apostle (Rev. 2:2) if he walks away with some legitimacy. If Paul was at least viewed as having met Jesus who positively told him he would be a witness (not an apostle), it would be enough for Paul to survive as a legitimate authority among Christians. This is what the vision account in Acts chapter 26 gives Paul, if the trial-judges believed Paul. Thus, at this trial, what Paul apparently means by saying he "escaped the lion" is that he was not stripped of all authority to teach and preach. He only could no longer call himself an apostle. (Rev. 2:2). He salvaged a win on the only point that mattered to Paul up to that time. No one could disprove that Paul had seen Jesus and there were positive words for him. At least, no one could prove otherwise until Luke published Acts. There we see the vision account in Acts chapter 22 undercuts whether the Acts chapter 26 vision account ever took place. Let's next compare these two accounts to understand how Paul changed his accounts to save his legitimacy at a trial, but lost it for us when we critically compare the two versions.
Point Five: The Vision Account in Acts 26 Solves The Problem Posed By The Vision Account in Acts 22
First, in Acts 22:10 Paul reports that at the time of the "vision" he is criticized by Jesus and merely told to go into Damascus. There is no word of approval at all from Jesus, just as Peter says in the Peter speech above in Homily 1 7. See this for yourself by reading next Acts 22:7-16:
(7) And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me,
Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
(8) And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am
Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
(9) And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they
heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
(10) And I said. What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
(11) And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being
led by the hand of them that were with me I came into
Damascus.
(12) And one Ananias , a devout man according to the law, well
reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there,
(13) came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul,
receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on him.
(14) And he [[Ananias]] said. The God of our fathers hath appointed
thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a
voice from his mouth.
(15) For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou
hast seen and heard. (16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. (ASV)
So imagine Peter has heard this same story from Paul, and only this story from Acts chapter 22. There is no word of approval from Jesus. Just condemnation. The only words ascribed to Jesus other than pure condemnation are these:
Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of
all things which are appointed for thee to do. (Acts 22:10).
This Acts chapter 22 vision account gave Peter room to challenge the validity of Paul's commission from Jesus.
No evidence is put forth by Luke that Ananias is a prophet somehow ( i.e ., predictive words to validate him). (Acts 9:12-17; 22:12.) Peter says in the above passage of the Clementine Homilies to his opponent (Paul): "If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary ; and this is the reason why it was through visions and dreams...." Peter must be referring to Paul's Acts chapter 22 version of the vision account. It was a brief vision, nothing more. Jesus was adversarial in tone.
In Peter's charge, Peter has not seen or heard the next account of the vision, which we can read in Acts chapter 26. This not only proves Paul is the intended target from the Clementine fragment, but it also gives the Peter speech immense authenticity and reliability. Because if the Peter speech never really happened, there is little reason why Paul would go out of his way to contradict and put a whole new spin on his vision experience when we see Acts chapter 26. The purpose of Paul's switch in Acts chapter 26 is clear: it erases the criticism of Peter recorded in the Clementine Homilies. In Acts chapter 26, Jesus appears now to have approving words during Paul's vision experience.
- if one ignores Peter's criticism in the Clementine Homily and insists this Acts chapter 22 account legitimizes Paul, one must recognize the only positive remarks come from Ananias. Then this means Paul's legitimacy depends 100% on the legitimacy of Ananias. However, there is no evidence from Luke in Acts or anywhere in the New Testament that Ananias is a prophet (i.e., by means of confirmed prophecy). As Gregg Bing unwittingly admits in "Useful for the Master," Timely Messenger (November 2004): "Ananias...was not an apostle, a pastor, or a prophet, as far as we know, but was simply what many would call an ordinary man." Peter in the Homily realizes that the validity of thinking Jesus spoke positively to Paul mistakenly ignores that Paul's positive commission in Acts chapter 22 solely comes from an uninspired non-prophet named Ananias.
To see this, we must read Paul's next account of his vision in Acts chapter 26. It is a very different account indeed. Paul, talking to Agrippa, states in (Acts 26:14-18):
(14) And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice
saying unto me in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest
thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the goad.
(15) And I said. Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus
whom thou persecutest.
(16) But arise, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I
appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness
[Gk. martus ] both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of
the things wherein I will appear unto thee;
(17) delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto
whom I send thee,
(18) to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light
and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive
remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are
sanctified by faith in me. (ASV)
Do you see that verses 16-18 are new very positive statements by Jesus? (Also, please note, Jesus has still not once actually called Paul an apostle .) Do you likewise see this Acts chapter 26 version undercuts Peter's argument in the speech from the Clementine Homilies ? Do you further see that Peter could not possibly have known of this Acts chapter 26 version at the time Peter confronts his opponent (obviously Paul) in the Clementine Homilies ?
Thus, it makes the most sense that Acts chapter 22 reflects the account Paul first gave at trial in response to Peter's charge. This explains why Paul believes he "escaped" the mouth of the lion even though the result was that all Christians of Asia (Minor) abandoned Paul. (2Tim. 1:15.) rNo one could disprove that Paul had some vision and there may have been positive statements by Jesus. These two vision accounts fell short of calling Paul an apostle. Paul lost the trial on that score. (Rev. 2:2.) Yet, in Paul's mind he won because he was not totally de-legitimized.
Point Six: Don't The Vision Accounts of Acts 22 and 26 Conflict?
In reflection on Paul's various vision accounts, ask yourself this: how plausible is it that the version in Acts chapter 26 just happens to allow Paul to side-step Peter's charge? Furthermore, is it really plausible that both versions (Acts 22 and 26) are true? No, it is not.
In the later version, Acts 26:16, Paul says that Jesus tells him he is appointed to be a witness ( martus , martyr ). However, in the earlier version of Acts 22:13-15, Jesus is harsh and then simply says Paul will be told "all" that he is to do when he gets into town. Then in town, and only then, Paul leams he is being appointed to be a witness. The identical words that Ananias' used in Acts chapter 22 are now transferred, in the next account in Acts chapter 26, into Jesus' mouth. The implausibility of both accounts being true stems from this verse in Acts chapter 22 where Jesus supposedly tells Paul:
Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of
all things which are appointed for thee to do. (Acts 22:10).
In this version from Acts chapter 22, Jesus himself says it is in Damascus that Paul will leam "all" of what to do. In the Acts chapter 26 version, everything that Paul was told in the Acts chapter 22 version in Damascus (which was in Ananias' mouth) is now given by Jesus before Paul even goes to Damascus. Both versions simply cannot be true. This is because 100% of what Ananias said in Acts chapter 22 is given by Jesus before Jesus in the vision departs in Acts chapter 26. So how can it be true that in Damascus Paul would learn for the first time "all things which are appointed for thee to do?" In the later account of Acts chapter 26, this 100% precedes Paul's trip to Damascus, making a liar out of Jesus in the Acts chapter 22 account. There Jesus said it would be given at Damascus. If you love the Lord Jesus more than Paul, the two stories are irreconcilable.
Point Seven: Why Make A Contradictory Account of the Vision Experience?
This change between Acts chapter 22 and chapter 26 is what explains how Paul in his "first defense" was able to "escape the mouth of the lion," as he puts it in (2Tim. 2:17). He apparently used this clever side-step. Paul simply made up more words of Jesus but this time words of approval before Jesus departs in the vision. Paul thereby made it appear Jesus is now a friend, and not an adversary. This explains why Paul's "first defense" spoken about in Second Timothy succeeded to some degree in Paul's mind even though "all in... Asia abandoned me." (2Tim. 1:15). Paul felt he had success in holding onto some legitimacy even though the verdict was so bad that all in Asia Minor abandoned him. He must have felt his defense salvaged enough that he could believe he escaped the Jewish-Christian opponents that he faced. Thus, Paul apparently made up this Acts chapter 26 version of the Christ-vision on the spot. Paul was satisfied that in doing so he "escaped the mouth of the lion" even though he effectively lost and "all in...Asia abandoned me."
Paul's Contradictory Vision Accounts Permit Skepticism About Paul
Of course, this all depends on you having a certain skepticism about Paul. Yet, most of us evangelicals resist fervently this notion. For those of you having trouble reconsidering Paul's place in the New Testament canon, please consider the following clear-cut contradiction between Paul's first two versions of his vision.
(Acts 9:7) And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
hearing a voice , but seeing no man. (KJV)
(Acts 22:9) And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and
were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to
me. (KJV)
Square these two if you can, but the Greek is identical. The men with him in one case heard (Gk. acoustica ) the voice, and in the other the men with him did not hear (Gk. acoustica ) the voice. Scholars compliment Luke for his honesty, showing us the contradiction. (. Robertson's Word Pictures .) However, these scholars are not thinking how damning this is of Paul's credibility.