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

[schillingklaus]

It only became reinterpreted as repentance for sin by reckless Judaizers and apologists like Ehrman; but the original meaning is conversion, for a repentance towards god makes no sense whatsoever.

[neilgodfrey]

You appear to be suggesting that Luke was interested in interpreting Paul's experience in an apolitical perspective. Luke elsewhere appears to be going out of his way to reduce Paul's status. My counterpoints between Paul's account and Luke's descriptions (he describes the event slightly differently three times in Acts) are explicable with the standard interpretation of Luke's efforts to cut Paul down to size -- and hence in sync with other ways Luke treats Paul, usually finding some way to downplay Paul's own accounts that we read in his letters.

I suppose I see the author of Acts as wanting to present Christian history in the best light, and in Paul's case I think they show him as working more in harmony with other Jewish Christians than his letters suggest. I wouldn't call this a reduction of Paul's status though, since I gather that he gets more "air time" than anyone else in Acts and the book culminates with his preaching in Rome.

I didn't have enough time yesterday to compare the third description in Acts of Paul's conversion experience, but that one also gives me the impression that Paul saw Jesus before he became blind.


26:16-19:

"But get up and stand on your feet. For I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen from Me and what I will show you" ... "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision."

Paul's subsequent blindness doesn't strike me as a denigration of his status but as a reaction to the brilliance of the heavenly light (22:11: "the brilliance of the light had blinded me"). It strikes me as being an affirmation of Paul's status as an apostle to the Gentiles.

Whereas I see Acts being written with a "Christian" audience in mind. It is so full of theological and political agendas that it comes across to me as an effort to establish one brand of the faith over others.

No doubt Acts expects us to understand Paul saw Jesus and that it was that vision that resulted in blindness. (It's the old story of bad consequences being threatened if one sees a divinity in his full glory.)

Luke's account of the vision makes perfect sense, as you indicate, as a stand-alone story. It is coherent and on its own raises no special problems. Like the Jerusalem council story of Acts 15. And the trial scenes of Paul. And the point by point matching of Paul with Peter. Etc etc -- as are noted and discussed in the lit.

Is it not of some note, in the above context, that Luke's story of the vision just happens to also find point by point counter-points to Paul's account of his vision?

[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.

[neilgodfrey]

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.

"Not lawful for a man to utter" would forbid teaching of any kind to anyone.

[Jair]

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.

"Not lawful for a man to utter" would forbid teaching of any kind to anyone.

Would the Tetragrammaton be unlawful for man to utter in Judea at this time? There may be no connection at all, it’s just the only thing I could think of that might have been unlawful.

[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.

"Not lawful for a man to utter" would forbid teaching of any kind to anyone.

I don't think that would matter from a Gnostic perspective, who could have spun it any which way, like "See! Paul had secret teachings". But if Paul is making a connection between what is "lawful" and the Law, it would sound like Paul heard things that the Jewish leaders wouldn't have liked, e.g. no circumcision and no food requirements. Still, it is all speculation about what others a century later might have made of Paul's comment.

[neilgodfrey]

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.

"Not lawful for a man to utter" would forbid teaching of any kind to anyone.

I don't think that would matter from a Gnostic perspective, who could have spun it any which way, like "See! Paul had secret teachings". But if Paul is making a connection between what is "lawful" and the Law, it would sound like Paul heard things that the Jewish leaders wouldn't have liked, e.g. no circumcision and no food requirements. Still, it is all speculation about what others a century later might have made of Paul's comment.

Perhaps Paul conveyed his secret teachings to the elite with sign language or by mime. "Yes, yes.... that's close... no, not that...."


(But it's always worth checking what the scholarly research has dug up on these things. The passage could profitably be read against the story from that time of Moses' ascent to heaven. Moses was given words to be repeated; Paul was silenced.)

[neilgodfrey]

Perhaps Paul conveyed his secret teachings to the elite with sign language or by mime. "Yes, yes.... that's close... no, not that...."

Oh dear, it just occurred to me, that once the elite did decipher the teaching by asking Paul "Is this it?" they would be struck dead because they uttered what was not lawful. Winners are the losers.

[GakuseiDon]

Would the Tetragrammaton be unlawful for man to utter in Judea at this time? There may be no connection at all, it’s just the only thing I could think of that might have been unlawful.

Yes, that would top the list of "unlawful to utter!" words. But I suspect there are also other power words that could be revealed in heaven that then could be used on earth to invoke power, along the line of the words used by Jesus and Judas in the Toledot Yeshu, or passwords that allowed one to traverse through the heavenly portals into the higher heavens, as per the Ascension of Isaiah. Paul's vague statement would have been useful for those later Gnostics to point to to show secret knowledge was passed on.

[neilgodfrey]

Paul's vague statement would have been useful for those later Gnostics to point to to show secret knowledge was passed on.

God: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
God: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother-in-law.
God: Thou shalt not repeat what you have heard here in heaven.
Paul: God said I am not allowed to repeat what I heard in heaven.

Modern exegete: Oh God, oh Paul, why are you all so vague with your statements?