cellus, greatly obliged the Jews by not marching his army through Judea, when he was commanded by Tiberius to go against Aretas, and was, on that account, invited to Jerufalem-that he, during his stay there, proclaimed Caius Emperor, and that he made Theophilus high-prieft in the room of his brother Jonathan, when this is confidered, we, furely, have greater reafon to think that the restoration of this important privilege, if it was ever taken from the Jews, came from Vitellius than Marcellus. But if we admit that Marcellus reftored this privilege to the Jews, after Vitellius left Jerufalem, what end will it anfwer? Profeffor Michaelis fays that "if this be true," St. Paul's converfion must have happened later than 35, but whether in 36 or 38" he ftill acknowledges himself unable to determine." He however observes that "neither date agrees with the epiftle to the Galatians,"-Profeffor Marsh fays "Confequently the death of Stephen, &c. could not have happened before that year;"-and adds" But whe ther it took place immediately after the departure of Pilate, or whether it happened a year later, is uncertain." And after having faid this he, two or three lines after, adds-" If the Sanhedrin obtained from Marcellus a privilege which they did not enjoy under Pilate, they, of course, took the earliest opportunity of making use of it." And therefore, fays he, "the journey to Jerufalem, mentioned Gal. i. 18. which was at least three years later, could not have happened be, fore 40." The only ufe then, which thefe learned profeffors appear to have made of this ftrange hypothefis is to prove the one that Gal. i. 18. is irreconcileable with it-the other that St. Paul went up to Jerufalem the first time not before the year 40. But is not the ufe which Michaelis makes of it a little more confiftent than that which our learned countryman makes? Let us not think it tedious to inquire. He fays, we perceive, that the death of Stephen, &c. could not have happened before the year 37. And prefently after adds 66 whether it took place immediately after the departure of Pilate, or whether it happened a year later, is uncertain." Suppose now it was only three quarters of a year later, (as they of courfe took the earlieft opportunity of making ufe of it,") in which cafe it must have happened about the beginning of the year 38; and Paul, whofe journey muft, by profeffor Marth's account, have happened at least three years later, could not have gone up to Jerufalem, at least, before the year 41. But fome interval took place between the death death of Stephen and the converfion of Saul, which fome learned divines seem to think of confiderable duration, and which fhould therefore be taken into the account.- -Let us then next inquire how long after the death of Stephen Saul appears to have been converted. We know that he continued to perfecute the church fo long after the death of Stephen as to do abundance of mifchief to the faints not only all over Jerufalem, but in remote places that he is faid to have "made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women to have committed them to prifon"- "to have beaten them that believed" oft "in every Synagogue," and "when many of the faints were put to death to have given his vote against them," and before he went to Damafcus " to have perfecuted them even unto ftrange cities." And any one that attends to these feveral particulars, cannot but perceive that there is reafon enough to think that he could not have been converted much within a year after the death of Stephen. Inftead then of faying, that St. Paul could not have gone up to Jerufalem, before the year 41, we may now fay that he could not have gone up before the year 42. But what time, at leaft, would our Lady Margaret's profeffor chuse to allow above three years, for St. Paul's continuance at Damafcus and in Arabia? For he fays "After his return to Damafcus three years elapfed, before he went up to Jerufalem to confer with Peter"-of course the time of his ftay at Damafcus and in Arabia, must be taken into the account. Now' how long time ought we to allow for each of these intervals? -Concerning his firft refidence at Damafcus Luke gives us this account- "Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damafcus; and straightway he preached Chrift in the Synagogues, that he is the Son of God. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him. But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the difciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a bafket."-Of his going into Arabia, and his returning again to Damafcus, St. Luke fays not a word: and, of course, leaves us to conclude that the flight happened when he firft went to Damafcus.-And in the account which he gives us of the defence which Paul made before king Agrippa, we learn, that he then told the king that he went to Damafcus immediately after his converfion-and we also perceive, by his faying that "he fhewed first to them of Damafcus," that he feems to intimate he then preached preached there. Of his journey into other parts of Arabia he at that time, fays not a word. In the fecond epiftle to the Cor. chap. xi. Paul himself fays, that he was obliged to leave Damafcus by night to faye his life; but adds nothing, as Profeffor Michaelis feems to think, to enable us to fay whether this flight happened at the end of his firft or fecond refidence at Damafcus-or, to dif cover the date of his converfion.-In his epiftle to the Galatians, chap. i. he, without faying any thing of what happened during his firft ftay at Damafcus, tells us, that he went into Arabia (feemingly intimating by this that Damafcus was not to be confidered as any part of Arabia) and that he returned again to Damafcus, which clearly implies that he had been there before. And by what he immediately fubjoins, we seem to have pretty nearly the fame encouragement to think that his flight did not happen at that time, as we have from St. Luke that it did happen at the end of his firft abiding in that city. For he not only fays "Then after three years I went up to Jerufalem," but he alfo adds, that he took the journey for this particular purpofe—viz.— ισορησαί Πετρον. If now he found it neceffary, during his first refidence at Damafcus to escape by night from his perfecutors, as appears both by his own account, Galatians i., and by St. Luke's account, Acts ix., it proves clearly that he must have done fomething to provoke the Jews to kill him, and to intereft the Ethnarch in their favor—and what that fomething could have been, if it was not because Saul increased the more in ftrength, and confounded the Jews, which dwelt at Damafcus, proving that this is very Chrift," it is not easy to fee. However whether he found it unfafe to remain at Damafcus at his firft or fecond refidence there, after having found it neceffary to leave that city in fuch a manner, it may be prefumed, that he would not truft himself there again for a long time-probably not till he was well affured that his perfecutors rage against him had fubfided, and not during the government of the Ethnarch under Aretas-If fo, it is not unlikely that he remained in other parts of Arabia, no one knows how long. And therefore, if by profeffor Marfh's account "three years elapfed, after he returned to Damafcus, before he went up to Jerufalem to confer with Peter," the time of his firft refidence at Damafcus, and the time he spent in Arabia, which feem to have been both pretty confiderable, must be taken into the account. Confequently, as we have already proved that Paul muft, at fooneft, have have gone up to Jerufalem, not before the year 42, but how much later, we could not then determine, we may now venture to fay, that his Journey could not, in all bability, have taken place before 48-and not very early in that year, if Paul's life was fought while he was first at Damafcus. pro To this conclufion we have arrived by fuppofing with profeffor Marsh and Michaelis that Stephen was not ftoned till after Pilate was recalled, and by a close attention to the history of Paul's proceedings, before and after he was converted, till he went up to Jerufalem to fee Peter.-But what reason have we to think that the refult of our refearches is at all confiftent with the following part of the history of the church? Let us endeavour to fee. The dearth mentioned Acts xi. is generally allowed to have happened in the year 44; and in the fourth year of Claudius, who began his reign in January 41. And by Jofephus' account, it must have happened after the death of Herod; for he fays that Herod was made king of Judæa by Claudius in the very beginning of his reign. And when he had been made king of Judæa three whole years, he went to Cefaræa, and there, after five day's illness, died. About a year before he died, and how much more we need not undertake to inquire, "he firetched forth his hands to vex certain of the church, and James, the brother of John, he killed with the fword. And when he faw that it pleased the Jews, about the days of unleavened bread, he proceeded further to take Peter alfo. And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prifon, intending after Eafter, to bring him forth to the Jews."-Confequently this imprisonment of Peter took place about Eafter in the year 43;-about the very time that Paul, according to the report of Profeffors M. and M. and our hypothetical reafoning, went up to fee him. But from the time that Paul left Peter at Jerufalem and went to Tarfus, St. Luke fays, the churches all over Judæa and Galilee and Samaria had reft and were multiplied ;and that Peter went to vifit all of them.-He also seems to fay that they continued in the fame tranquil ftate all the while that Paul was at Tarfus and about a year after, when this tranquillity was interrupted by Herod, in the year 43. Confequently, we can find no room for this remarkable period in the lives of our Apoftles. Let us now try to fee how far our conclufion appears to be reconcileable with the evidence of profane hiftory. For VOL. XIV. Chm. Mag. May 1808. 3 A though though Profeffor Michaelis has afferted with his ufual confidence "unfortunately the converfion of St. Paul is not combined with any historical fact, by means of which the date may be discovered," and Profeffor Marfh appears to have affented to it ;-unfortunately for thofe great ecclefiaftical illuminées, Paul's refidence in Damafcus appears to have been combined with an hiftorical fact, of a very remarkable nature, attefted by a combination of various other cotemporary facts, feldom, if ever, to be met with in hiftory. A fact which proves beyond a doubt that Paul was obliged to leave Damafcus before Pilate left Judæa. In the xi. ch. of 2 Ep. to the Cor. he intimates that when the Ethnarch wanted to apprehend him Aretas was king. But what account have we of this Arabian kingand when did he die? His fifter, we are informed, was Herod the Tetrarch's firft wife, and was by him put away for the fake of his brother Philip's wife. This was the caufe of a war between Herod and Aretas, which continued four years and ended with the life of Aretas. Tiberius, juft before his death, to oblige Herod, commanded Vitellius, the proconful of Syria, to go against Aretas. Vitellius, at the request of Herod, did not march his army through Judæa, but took another route to avoid giving offence to the Jews. But he himself went to Jerufalem with Herod; where they depofed Jonathan, and placed his brother Theophilus in his room.(c) While they were at Jerufalem, they received an account of the death of the Emperor, and of the acceffion of Caius. Vitellius ftaid to receive the oaths of fidelity to the new Emperor; and the Jews offered facrifices for him. Jerufalem, it fhould be added, is faid to have been the first city of the East, that heard the news of this change, and the firft city in the Eaft that proclaimed him Emperor.(d) By this time Artabanes had fucceeded Aretas in Arabia, and requefted an interview with Vitellius. Accordingly, Vitellius, accompanied by Herod, went to meet him near the Euphrates, where Herod erected a stately pavilion and gave a magnificent (c) As Theophilus was high priest, according to professors M. and M. before Stephen was stoned, why should we be expected to believe that it was likely that St. Luke wrote his Gospel, and the Acts, for his instruction? (d) Agrippa's Epistle to Caius, mentioned by Josephus. Antiq. 1. xviii. c. ii. et Legat, ad Caium. |