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

[neilgodfrey]

Litwa, M. David. “Paul’s Mosaic Ascent: An Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 12.7–9.” New Testament Studies 57, no. 02 (April 2011): 238–57.

https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S0028688510000342

[arnoldo]

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.

2 Peter 3:16 alludes to this possibility.

[neilgodfrey]

2 Peter 3:16 alludes to this possibility.

What is hard to understand about being told not to repeat what one has just heard?

[GakuseiDon]

Still, it is all speculation about what others a century later might have made of Paul's comment.

2 Peter 3:16 alludes to this possibility.

Thanks arnoldo, that an interesting find!

2 Peter 3:15 ... even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

[neilgodfrey]

It's called biblical manticism. If something is unclear, that's Lewis Carroll tiny door into a new world of mysterious explorations. If something is clear, then it must be reinterpreted as unclear so that another world can be found that might even lead to that magical tea-party with the mad hatter and sleepy dormouse, or at least being stimulated with all the fun of searching, even if what is seen is as elusive as the smile on the Cheshire cat. Many biblical hobbyists censure astrology and palm reading and tarot cards but they read the bible with the same kinds of constructs that find meaning in those "forbidden arts". It's another form of mantic reading -- quite appropriate for god-inspired liver markings and written texts.

Alternatively, one can read serious scholarship that identifies the forbidden words that Paul heard was part of his (faux?) self-deprecation pronouncing how he could, if he were so inclined but he is not, establish his equality and even superiority to the other apostles: whereas Moses' ascent to heaven, according to the story told at the time, led to him being given words that he must pass on to others and hence become the earthly authority over God's people, 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!

How the Bible Works

Paul's Mosaic Ascent: An Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 12.7–9

[John2]

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.

But the idea goes back to the OT, e.g., Hos. 14:2 and Joel 2:12:

Take with you words and return to the Lord."

"Yet even now,” declares the Lord, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning.

This is the kind of "repentance" I think Paul preached in Acts 2:21 and John the Baptist preached in Mk. 1:4 and that God is said to have called for via Jesus in Acts 5:31:

God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance [metanoian] and forgive their sins.

This idea is also directed at Jews throughout the Damascus Document. As Wacholder puts it:

God ... is minding them with a call to return to Him ... the author is calling his audience to turn to God.


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover

[John2]

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.

I also see Acts as being written with a Christian audience in mind, and I think the brand of faith it promotes is Nazarene, since it is pro-Jewish Torah observance and accepts Paul (which are hallmarks of the Nazarenes) and refers to Christians as Nazarenes.

And at the time I think Acts was written (c. 95 CE), the only Christian sects I am aware that existed (or are said to have existed) were Nazarenes and Ebionites (and Gentile followers), but the Nazarenes came first, so in my view Acts is presenting (in the best light) the earliest version of Christianity.

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?

But I disagree with most of the counter-points you mentioned:

Paul says he was carried to heaven : Luke says he was knocked to the ground

Paul said he didn't know if the visions were in the body or out of the body and the author of Acts appears to think it was out of the body to me.

Paul says he heard things unutterable : Luke says bystanders could not understand the voice

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

Paul says his vision exalted him : Luke says the vision was given because he was a persecutor and to humble him

But Acts says that Paul was God's chosen instrument (9:15: "This man is My chosen instrument to carry My name before the Gentiles and their kings, and before the people of Israel").

Paul says God stuck a thorn in his side to keep him humble : Luke has Jesus say he was kicking against the pricks.

I'm still thinking about this one.

Paul speaks of a revelatory vision : Luke of blindness

But Acts mentions a heavenly vision in 26:19 ("I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision"). And whether or not Paul actually went blind, I don't think the idea that he did conflicts with Gal. 1:16 ("I did not immediately consult with anyone"; cf. Acts 9:9: "For three days he was without sight"). I'm more puzzled by why Acts doesn't mention Arabia, but that's another matter.

[neilgodfrey]

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.

I also see Acts as being written with a Christian audience in mind, and I think the brand of faith it promotes is Nazarene, since it is pro-Jewish Torah observance and accepts Paul (which are hallmarks of the Nazarenes) and refers to Christians as Nazarenes.

And at the time I think Acts was written (c. 95 CE), the only Christian sects I am aware that existed (or are said to have existed) were Nazarenes and Ebionites (and Gentile followers), but the Nazarenes came first, so in my view Acts is presenting (in the best light) the earliest version of Christianity.

I think a more likely date for Acts is closer to 195 than 95. Around 170?

Paul said he didn't know if the visions were in the body or out of the body and the author of Acts appears to think it was out of the body to me.

Doesn't Paul say that he didn't know if he was transported to the third heaven in or out of the body. The vision necessarily happens to one's body -- one's eyes -- but from that point on Paul did not know if it was his body or spirit that was rising up to paradise. 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.

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.

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.

Paul says his vision exalted him : Luke says the vision was given because he was a persecutor and to humble him

But Acts says that Paul was God's chosen instrument (9:15: "This man is My chosen instrument to carry My name before the Gentiles and their kings, and before the people of Israel").

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. I don't think he even calls him an apostle, from memory. I see Luke as the "catholicizer", making the Christianities following Paul at one with the Christianities following the Twelve. 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.

Paul speaks of a revelatory vision : Luke of blindness

But Acts mentions a heavenly vision in 26:19 ("I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision"). And whether or not Paul actually went blind, I don't think the idea that he did conflicts with Gal. 1:16 ("I did not immediately consult with anyone"; cf. Acts 9:9: "For three days he was without sight"). I'm more puzzled by why Acts doesn't mention Arabia, but that's another matter.

Quite so. But I didn't mean to suggest that Luke denied Paul had a vision at all. Obviously Luke said Paul did see a "blinding" light - in Acts 26 we learn it was "brighter than the sun". What I was trying to say was that whereas Paul said his vision transported him up into the heavens, Luke on the other hand was reducing Paul to the level of the Twelve: the Twelve had once been spiritually blind but after seeing Jesus resurrected they were "enlightened"; Paul had to learn that he, too, had been "blind" in his persecution of the church through the lesson of a temporary literal blindness.

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?

[andrewcriddle]

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.

Andrew Criddle

[gryan]

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?