Paul's episode of blindness, and being caught up into Paradise

[John2]

My point was only that Luke was insisting Paul hit the ground and was taken nowhere near paradise. Paul in Acts never hints that he ever went any further than the ground when the vision "hit" him.

I guess I just don't see Paul being knocked to the ground and blinded by a vision as a denigration of his status or a negation of an out of body experience, but I will keep the idea in mind.

Acts doesn't say that the bystanders didn't understand the voice (9:7: "They heard the voice but did not see anyone").

If we accept the translations of Acts 22:9 then it appears they heard the sound of a voice without understanding it.

I did not notice that! Thanks for pointing it out. With three versions of the vision in Acts, you have to be on your toes.

But more to the point that I was toying with, in the Acts vision nothing is said to Paul that could be unlawful to utter. In fact Paul twice later told others what he heard the voice say to him.

But this seems no different than what Paul says himself in Gal. 1:15-16, that he had a vision of Jesus to preach to the Gentiles. If Acts is a contradiction of 2 Cor. 12:4, then so is Gal. 1:15-16 ("God ... was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles").

But in any event, does Paul say that he only heard things in his vision "that man is not permitted to tell"?

Is there a contradiction here? I wouldn't have thought so. Luke makes Paul the chosen instrument to take the gospel to the gentiles but he also makes sure he is not exalted above the Twelve.

But Paul places himself lower than the Twelve in 1 Cor. 15:9 ("For I am the least of the apostles and am unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God"). If Paul is equal to the Twelve in Acts, wouldn't that be an improvement of his status?

I don't think he even calls him an apostle, from memory.

I hadn't thought about this before so I checked and saw some references (e.g., 14:14: "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd").

Whereas in the letters of Paul one reads of a man who puts the other apostles down -- unless it is to demonstrate in some reverse way how he is "more humble/unworthy" than the others, thus opening it up to the readers to see himself as "greater". It was the same ploy found in the works "of Moses". Moses writes that he was more humble or meek than any man on earth -- the message to the reader being that he is more worthy of being used by God than anyone else.

That's how I think the author of Acts puts things in the "best light," by presenting Paul as working more in harmony with other Jewish Christians than his letters suggest. But even if Paul (in his letters) doesn't have the highest regard for Jewish Christian leaders, he still worked with them and was also willing to at least pretend to be Torah observant (as per 1 Cor. 9:20), and both of those things are consistent with Acts (even if the latter presents them in a rosier light).

Yes, the Arabia thing is a puzzlement. I suppose the first task there is to find out what areas were considered at that time as part of Arabia. Maybe you know and can help out there?

I gather from past research that more or less anything east of Judea and south of Damascus could be Arabia, e.g., Josephus War 5.4.3 ("Now the third wall [of Jerusalem] was all of it wonderful; yet was the tower Psephinus elevated above it at the north-west corner, and there Titus pitched his own tent; for being seventy cubits high it both afforded a prospect of Arabia at sun-rising, as well as it did of the utmost limits of the Hebrew possessions at the sea westward").

[John2]

Neil wrote in a post on this thread prior to our discussion (which has bearing on something I wrote in my previous post):

Paul was given words that he could not use to establish his authority from that ascent. Hence -- as he is ironically pointing out -- he is "less than the least" of all even though he could, so goes the subtle innuendo, if God willed it, be greater than all.

It's a reverse psychology technique to invite others to exalt him to mysterious and barely comprehensible heights -- heaven forbid that he exalt himself!

I agree, and I see the author of Acts as being one of these invited "others" who exalted him, but the points you've been raising are interesting to think about.

[GakuseiDon]

If it was the same event, then the "unspeakable words" turned out to be fairly mundane, not to mention lawful for a man to utter! So the story in Acts would be a watered-down version of what happened in 2 Cor 12, if indeed they are referring to the same event.

Following up on my earlier thought: I wonder if "unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" was used by the Gnostics to suggest Paul had secret teachings that he passed on. The story in Acts would then be an attempt to show the words as mundane, taking it away from the Gnostics.

This was a Gnostic position
Hippolytus Against Heresies

For this, he says, is the Resurrection that takes place through the gate of heaven, through which, he says, all those that do not enter remain dead. These same Phrygians, however, he says, affirm again that this very (man), as a consequence of the change, (becomes) a god. For, he says, he becomes a god when, having risen from the dead, he will enter into heaven through a gate of this kind. Paul the apostle, he says, knew of this gate, partially opening it in a mystery, and stating that he was caught up by an angel, and ascended as far as the second and third heaven into paradise itself; and that he beheld sights and heard unspeakable words which it would not be possible for man to declare. 2 Corinthians 12:2

These are, he says, what are by all called the secret mysteries, which (also we speak), not in words taught of human wisdom, but in those taught of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him. 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 And these are, he says, the ineffable mysteries of the Spirit, which we alone are acquainted with.

Wow, perfect! Thanks so much for that reference, andrewcriddle! I've always had my own theory of Christian origins, based around the use of magic by the earliest Christians passed on as secret teachings, and that passage is exactly what I would have expected. Thank you!

[andrewcriddle]

This was a Gnostic position
Hippolytus Against Heresies

For this, he says, is the Resurrection that takes place through the gate of heaven, through which, he says, all those that do not enter remain dead. These same Phrygians, however, he says, affirm again that this very (man), as a consequence of the change, (becomes) a god. For, he says, he becomes a god when, having risen from the dead, he will enter into heaven through a gate of this kind. Paul the apostle, he says, knew of this gate, partially opening it in a mystery, and stating that he was caught up by an angel, and ascended as far as the second and third heaven into paradise itself; and that he beheld sights and heard unspeakable words which it would not be possible for man to declare. 2 Corinthians 12:2

These are, he says, what are by all called the secret mysteries, which (also we speak), not in words taught of human wisdom, but in those taught of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him. 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 And these are, he says, the ineffable mysteries of the Spirit, which we alone are acquainted with.

Andrew Criddle:

Thanks for this quotation.

I just now read the quotation in the context of the chapter in which it is found. The whole chapter seems to me to be devoted to presenting a surprisingly sympathetic articulation of "heresy". I'm not clear where the "refutation" comes in. How much of the opponent's spiritual exegesis of Paul does Hippolytus accept?

Could you clarify what is going on in this ancient text?

Hippolytus is seeking to establish that these views largely derive from pagan (largely Greek) sources. He regards this as a refutation. Books 1 to 4 of this work (2 and 3 are lost) provided information about Pagan thought and practice to help demonstrate the heretics are plagiarists. Modern sympathizers with syncretism will be much more positive towards such borrowing from paganism than Hippolytus was. I don't think Hippolytus agreed with the eegesis of Paul at all. He regarded the Gnostics as seeking to find apostolic support for ideas that really derive from paganism.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

My point was only that Luke was insisting Paul hit the ground and was taken nowhere near paradise. Paul in Acts never hints that he ever went any further than the ground when the vision "hit" him.

I guess I just don't see Paul being knocked to the ground and blinded by a vision as a denigration of his status or a negation of an out of body experience, but I will keep the idea in mind.

Maybe I have overstated my case. I only meant what is necessarily implicit in the difference between being taken up into the heavens and falling on the ground. Luke is no doubt treating Paul honourably by allowing him a vision and being converted from a persecutor to a messenger of God to the gentiles. Perhaps a certain "irony" is the idea I am looking for. Luke does want to downgrade Paul from the status of being "the sole apostle" who opposed the other apostles and to bring Paul into the "catholic" fold of being part of the Christianity that claimed to be based on the Twelve apostles.

Others, such as Marcionites (okay -- I know we are getting into the question of dating of Acts here) "downgraded" the Twelve and exalted Paul. Paul could claim to have been taken to heaven (in or out of the body is almost beside the point) while none of the Twelve could claim such an honour.

Luke could have had Paul's conversion and vision come to him some other way without describing him as falling to the ground. I can't help but see an irony there: Paul according to "Paul-alone Christians" had a vision that transported him to the heavens; Paul according to Luke was knocked to the ground and it was from there that he heard the voice that others could not understand.

It may be that it is my imagination as a reader that is seeing an irony that Luke did not intend. I grant that. But it's a possibility that I thought I'd put "out there" to see what others made of it, since it does seem to cohere with other possibly intentional ironies and what is widely considered Luke's agenda re Paul.

Or maybe not.

But more to the point that I was toying with, in the Acts vision nothing is said to Paul that could be unlawful to utter. In fact Paul twice later told others what he heard the voice say to him.

But this seems no different than what Paul says himself in Gal. 1:15-16, that he had a vision of Jesus to preach to the Gentiles. If Acts is a contradiction of 2 Cor. 12:4, then so is Gal. 1:15-16 ("God ... was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles").

I don't know what Paul means when he says that God revealed his son "in" him. I don't see how that can be connected with the 2 Cor 12 passage which was a vision "to" him. I don't know if Galatians is even referring to a vision. (I am reminded of Stoic ideas that "reason/logos" is found "in" the ideal man, though.)

Is there a contradiction here? I wouldn't have thought so. Luke makes Paul the chosen instrument to take the gospel to the gentiles but he also makes sure he is not exalted above the Twelve.

But Paul places himself lower than the Twelve in 1 Cor. 15:9 ("For I am the least of the apostles and am unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God"). If Paul is equal to the Twelve in Acts, wouldn't that be an improvement of his status?

Maybe, but there is a case that that section is an interpolation. Even so, by declaring himself less than the least he is following the principle found elsewhere in early Judaism and Christian thought: the least will be the greatest.

I don't think he even calls him an apostle, from memory.

I hadn't thought about this before so I checked and saw some references (e.g., 14:14: "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd").

I will have to check again what I thought I had read about that question. What is interesting (again another point from memory) is the interpretation that Paul is at that stage in Acts still considered as a lesser than Barnabas given that Barnabas at that stage is mentioned first.