1510011

7/30/2019 1510011

1/29

Harvard Divinity School

Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1-12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul's Apostolate. Part2: Paul's Heavenly Ascent and Its SignificanceAuthor(s): C. R. A. Morray-JonesSource: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 86, No. 3 (Jul., 1993), pp. 265-292Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity SchoolStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510011Accessed: 13/04/2010 11:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press andHarvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510011?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1510011?origin=JSTOR-pdf

7/30/2019 1510011

2/29

P a r a d i s e R e v i s i t e d ( 2 C o r 1 2 : 1 2 ) : T h eJ e w i s h M y s t i c a l Backgroursd o f P a u l ' sApostolateP a r t 2 : P a u l ' s H e a v e n l y A s c e n t a r l d it sSignificarlceFC. R. A. Morray-JonesStanford,California

9 art one of this articleexamined he Jewishsources hatrecord he story1 of four individualswho "entered ardes," hree of whomcame to griefwhile R. Aqiba, alone, survivedunscathed.The story is preservedwithin atalmudiccompilationof materialsconcerningmacasehmerkabah an eso-teric, visionary-mysticalraditionassociated with Ezekiel 1),1 in Song ofSongs Rabbah,2and in two "merkabah-mystical"ekhalotcompilations:HekhalotZutarti nd MerkabahRabbah.3 everalscholarshaveadopted he

*Part one appeared in HTR 86:2 (1993) 177-217.It. H. g. 2.1; y. Hag. 77b; b. Hag. 14b-lSb. All three texts are translated in part 1, pp.210-15.2Cant. R. 1.28 (= 1.4.1). Cant 1:4 is applied to Aqiba in the story as recorded in the

talmudic sources. For a translation of this text, see part 1, pp. 210-15.3In Peter Schafer, ed., Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (Texte und Studien zum AntikenJudentum 2; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1981) 338-46 (Hekhalot Zutarti) and 671-73(Merkabah Rabbah); also idem, ed., Geniza-Fragmente zur Hekhalot-Literatur (Texte undStudien zum Antiken Judentum 6; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1984) 88, lines 6-17 (HekhalotZutarti). Translations may be found in part 1, pp. 196-98.

HTR 86:3 (1993) 265-92

7/30/2019 1510011

3/29

266 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

suggestion, irst offeredby WilhelmBousset,4 hat this storyindicates hebackgroundn Jewishmystical traditionof Paul'saccountof his ascent toparadise(2 Cor 12:1-12).5 The traditional nterpretation f the rabbinicpardes story,however, has been challengedby scholarswho have arguedthat the story was originallynonmystical n intentand only came to beassociatedwith macasehmerkabahwhen it was so interpreted,n the thirdor fourthcenturyCE, by the redactor(s) f the talmudic"MysticalCollec-tion."6Accordingto this view, the hekhalotsources, which interpret hestory as an accountof Aqiba'sascent to the merkabah the divine throne-chariot),arederivative f thetalmudic raditionf notactuallypost-talmudic.Although several scholarshave, in recent years, perceivedthe potentialsignificance of Jewish mysticismfor the study of Paul and other earlyChristianwriters,7uncertainty oncerning he originalmeaningand tradi-tion history of the pardes story has inhibited furtherexplorationof itsrelevanceto Paul'sexperience,as recorded n 2 Corinthians 2.Analysis of this problembegan with a consideration f m. .Hag. .1, thelemmaon whichthe talmudic"MysticalCollection"depends.8Themishnahstates that no individualwas permitted o "expoundha-merkabahthat is,

4WilhelmBousset, "DieHimmelsreiseder Seele,"ARW4 (1901) 147-48.sHansWindisch,Der zweiteKorintherbriefGottingen:Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht,1924)375-76; HansBietenhard,Die himmlischeWelt m UrchristentumndSpdtjudentumWUNT2; Tubingen:Mohr/Siebeck,1951) 91-95 and 161-68; GershomG. Scholem,JewishGnos-ticism,MerkabahMysticism ndTalmudicTradition2d ed.;New York:JewishTheologicalSeminaryof America, 1965) 14- 19.6Ephraim . Urbach,"Ha-Masorotal Toratha-Sodbi-Tequphat a-Tanna'im,"n idem,R. J. Zvi Werblowsky,and Ch. Wirszubski,eds., Studies in Mysticismand ReligionPre-sentedto GershomG.Scholemon HisSeventiethBirthdaybyPupils,ColleaguesandFriends(Jerusalem:Magnes,1967) 12-17 [Hebrew];DavidJ. Halperin,TheMerkabahnRabbinicLiterature AOS 62; New Haven:AmericanOrientalSociety, 1980) 86-99; andidem, TheFaces of the Chariot:EarlyJewishResponsesto Ezekiel'sVision (Texteund StudienzumAntikenJudentum 6;Tubingen:Mohr/Siebeck,1988)34-37, 199-208;PeterSchafer,"NewTestamentndHekhalot iterature:heJourneyntoHeaven n Pauland nMerkabahMysticism,"JJS 35 (1984) 19-35, reprintedn idem,Hekhalot-StudienTexte undStudienzumAntikenJudentum19; Tubingen:Mohr/Siebeck,1988) 234-49.7Morton mith,"Observations nHekhalotRabbati,"n AlexanderAltmann, d.,Biblicaland OtherStudies(Studies andTexts 1;Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 1963);John W. Bowker,"'Merkabah' isions and the Visions of Paul,"JSS 16 (1971) 157-73;Christopher owland,TheOpenHeaven:AStudyofApocalypticn Judaismand EarlyChris-tianity (London:SPCK, 1982) esp. 368-86; JamesD. Tabor,ThingsUnutterable:Paul'sAscentto Paradise in its Greco-Roman,udaic andEarlyChristianContexts Lanham,MD:UniversityPress of America,1986); BradH. Young,"TheAscensionMotifof 2 Corinthians12 in Jewish,Christianand GnosticTexts," Grace TheologicalJournal 9 (1988) 73-103;Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert:TheApostolateand Apostasyof Saul the Pharisee(NewHaven/London:Yale UniversityPress, 1990) esp. 34-71.8Part1, pp. 185-86.

7/30/2019 1510011

4/29

C. R. A. MORRAY-JONES 267

Ezekiel 1]" unless he was a hakam "sage"). n the prerabbinic,pocalypticmilieu fromwhich therabbisof the first and secondcenturiesnherited hisunit of tradition,he term hakam riginallyreferredo a "mantic age" whopossessed esoteric knowledge and visionary-mystical xperience(dacat).Withinthe context of rabbinism, owever, t assumed he meaning"rabbi."The restriction s associatedwith a concernto safeguard he traditionsconcerningGod's glory (kabod), or appearancen human form upon themerkabah, gainstpotentiallyheretical nterpretations,n particularhe so-called "twopowers heresy."ThatPaul'schristologywas profoundly nflu-enced by such traditionss now widely recognized.9The talmudicversionsof the pardes story andthe version in MidrashRabbahnarratehe story inthe thirdperson and identify the three who came to grief as Ben Azzai,Ben Zoma, and Elishab. Abuyah.WhereasAqiba was an ordained abbi(hakam),hese threewereneverordained nd arereferred o in othersourcesas "disciplesof the sages"(talmidei-hakamim).hus, the talmudicversionof the story(followed by MidrashRabbah) s an illustration f the restric-tion concerningmacasehmerkabah ecordedat m. .Hag. .1. In the hekhalotsources,the story takes the form of a first-personnarrativeattributed oAqiba, into which materialderivedfrom the talmudicversion,employingthe third person, has been interpolated.Only in the interpolatedhird-per-son materialare the threewho cameto grief identified.Theessentialpointof the talmudic ersion(only a hakammay safelyinvolve himself n macagehmerkabah)s thereforeabsent in the originalhekhalotaccount.Accordingto this version,Aqiba states that the merit of his deeds renderedhim, inGod's eyes, "worthy o behold my glory" (ra'uylehistakkel i-kebodi).These considerationsed to the conclusion hat an early redactorof the"MysticalCollection" dapted he first-person ersionfound n the hekhalotsourcesand made it into an illustration f m. .Hag. .1 by adding he namesof the three almidei-hakamim.inguistic ffinitybetween he hekhalot ersionand the mishnah (ra'uy lehistakkel i-kebodi) ndicates,however, that thetwo units of traditionwere alreadyassociatedprior to the talmudicadap-tation of the story. It was observed hat the contextin which this associa-tion first occurredmaywell have beenan earlyversionof HekhalotZu.tarti.lIn any event, the first-personaccountin the hekhalot sources is clearlyolder thanthe talmudicversions. It must, therefore,predate he "MysticalCollection"n its present orm and may go backto Aqibahimself,or to his9See, especially, Segal, Paul the Convert,40-71; and Carey C. Newman, Paul's Glory-Christology:TraditionandRhetoric NovTSup 69; Leiden: Brill, 1992). Further referencesto scholarship on the traditions concerning the kabodand their crucial importance for our

understanding of the christology of Paul and other early Christian writers are given in Part1 n. 8.10Part 1, 207-8 n. 116.

7/30/2019 1510011

5/29


circle. This originalversion of the story refersunambiguouslyo an ascentto the heavenly temple in the face of fierce opposition on the part ofdemonic"angelsof destruction"mcll'akei-habbalah),ho perform he func-tion of the terrifyingangelic guardians f the gateways,as described n thehekhalotsources.ll In this version,the termpardes is used withoutexpla-nation as a technical term for the Holy of Holies in the highest heaven,where the glory of God resides. This usage was foundto be derivedfromancient traditions hat identified the Gardenof Eden with the heavenlysanctuary.According o these traditions, he heavenlytemple (to whichitsearthlycounterpart as believedclosely to correspond) mbodied he struc-ture of the universe,so that ascent through he heavenly evels was also ajourney"inward"hrough he temple'sconcentricareas of increasingholi-ness to the Holy of Holies at the center. While the majorityof sources,including he hekhalotwritings,describea sevenfolddivision of this struc-ture, othersrecordan alternative, robablyolder,threefoldmodel. It is notclear which of these two models was employed in the original story ofAqiba'sascent to the heavenlysanctuary, r pardes, but the story is cer-tainly rooted n an apocalypticandvisionary-mysticalradition hat is con-siderablyolder thanthe first centuryCE.We can now turn o Paul'saccountof his ascentto paradiseand see howit is illuminedby these traditions.2 Cor 12:1-12 reads as follows:

lIt is necessary or me to boast. Though t is not profitable,yet I willcome to visions and revelations of the Lord (o sTassl as KalasoKaXvNrtiKuptOu12):I knowa man in Christwho fourteenyearsago whether n the body or out of the body I do not know, Godknows wascaughtup to the thirdheaven apsaPyvGa. . . X5 xptxovoUpavov). 3AndI know that this man whether n the body or out-side of the body I do not know, God knows 4was caught up intoparadisepsayn is Tov sapa6csov)and heardunutterablewordswhich it is not permitted or a human o speak (appTa paTa aOVK 40V avopXsW Xanesal). SOnbehalf of this man I will boast,but on behalfof myself I will not boast, save in my weaknesses.6Soif I wish to boast, I will not be a fool, for I will be speaking he truth,but I refrain, est anyone shouldgive me creditbeyond what he seesin me or hearsfrom me, 7aeven onsidering he exceptionalnatureofthe revelations Kai i] VspB30Xi] T@VasoKaXvNr@v). 7bTherefore,

See, for example, HekhalotRabbati15.8-16.2 (Schafer, Synopse,213-15).I2It eems most natural,contra among others) JorgBaumgarten(PaulusunddieApokalyptik:Die Auslegung pokalyptischerUberlieferungenn den echtenpaulinischenBriefen WMANT44; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975] 13646), to interpret vl)plol) here as an

objective genitive, ratherthan a genitive of authorship. This will be confirmed by the follow-. .lng ana ysls.

7/30/2019 1510011

6/29


lest I should be too exalted, a thotn in the flesh was given to me, anangel of Satanto strikeme (60011 ROICTlMOkO8I13 supecl, aYosEaTava Iva 1le KokaXl4n), est I shouldbe too exalted.8Three imes,I called upon the Lord about this, that he/it might leave me (vaasonsTrJ as' tRoU) but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient foryou, for (my) power is perfected n weakness."9Rather, hen, I willboast most gladly of my weaknesses,that the power of Christ maydwell over me. lTherefore am content with weaknesses, insults,hardships, ersecutions, ndcalamitieson behalf of Christ for when-ever I am weak, I am powerful. llI have become foolish you havecompelledme, for I ought to be commendedby you! For I was infe-riorto the "super-apostles"n nothing,even if I am nothing! 2Indeed,the signs of an apostle wereperformed mongyou with all endurance,with signs and wondersand works of power!

In order to understand his passage, we must first take account of itscontext.13 aul is at this pointengaged n a defense of his apostolicauthor-ity, which his opponentshave challenged.4 The frame within which 2

l3It s assumed n whatfollows that 2 Corinthians 0-13 is a separate extualunit,prob-ably partof the "severe etter"of 2 Cor2:3-4,9; 7:8,12. Fora recentdiscussionof thisissue,includingan excellentoverviewof relevant cholarship, ee N. H. Taylor,"TheCompositionandChronologyof SecondCorinthians,"SNT44 (1991) 67-87. See also GeorgStrecker,"DieLegitimitat es paulinischenApostolatesnach 2 Korinther 0-13,"NTS38 (1992) 566-86. l4It is not possible to go into the difficult questionof the exact identityof Paul'soppo-nents here,but it seemscertain hat they were JewishChristians f somekind andclaimed"visionsand revelations" f theirown. See further, . B. Lightfoot,"St.Paul andtheThree,"in idem, St. Paul's Epistleto the Galatians(London:Macmillan,1874)283-355, especially353-55; ErnstKasemann, Die Legitimitat es Apostels.EineUntersuchung u II Korinther10-13,"ZNW41 (1942) 33-71; H. J.Schoeps,Paul: TheTheologyof theApostle n theLightof Jewish ReligiousHistory (Philadelphia:Westminster,1961) 74-87; GerhardFriedrich,"DieGegnerdes Paulus m2. Korintherbrief,"n OttoBetz,MartinHengel,andPeterSchmidt,eds., Abrahamunser Vater:Juden undChristen mGesprachuberdie Bibel, FestschrifturOtto Michel zum 60. Geburtstag AGJU5; Leiden: Brill, 1963) 181-221; C. K. Barrett,"Paul'sOpponents n 2 Corinthians," TS17 (1970-71) 233-54; andidem, A Commentaryon the SecondEpistle to the Corinthians London:Black, 1973) 302-6; JohnJ. Gunther,St.Paul's Opponents nd theirBackgroundNovTSup35;Leiden:Brill,1973) esp. 298-307; E.Earle Ellis, "Paul and his Opponents," n Jacob Neusner,ed., Christianity,JudaismandOtherGreco-RomanCults:Studies or MortonSmithat Sixty(SJLA 12;Leiden:Brill, 1975)264-98, reprintedn E. EarleEllis, ProphecyandHermeneuticn EarlyChristianityWUNT18;Tubingen:Mohr/Siebeck,1978) 80-115; JohnHowardSchutz,Paul and the Anatomy fApostolicAuthority SNTSMS26; London/NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1975)165-86;Bengt Holmberg,Paul and Power:the Structure fAuthorityn thePrimitiveChurchas reflected n the PaulineEpistles(Philadelphia: ortress,1980) 45-48 and 77-79; DieterGeorgi,TheOpponents fPaul in SecondCorinthiansPhiladelphia: ortress,1986)esp.32-39; Tabor,ThingsUnutterable, 1-45; FrancesYoungandDavidF. Ford,MeaningandTruth

7/30/2019 1510011

7/29


Corinthians 0-13 is set is thusvery similar o that indicatedby Galatians1-2.l5 In bothcases, Paul'sdefenseis that his apostoliccommissioncomesdirectly rom God or Christ,andnot throughhumanmediation 2 Cor 10:8;13:10; Gal 1:1; 1:12; 2:7).l6 A similar claim is, of course, part of thestandard pening ormulaof his letters(for example,Rom 1:1-7), but onlyin Galatiansand 2 Corinthians 0-13 does he emphasizeso stronglythathis authority s independentof any human chain of transmission. n 2Corinthians 1, Paul explains thathe is driven to "boast"of his visionaryexperience,againsthis own wishes and better udgement,only in responseto the claims of his opponents.Normally,he refrains rom such boasting 2Cor 12:6; compareRom 15:17-19). He thus makesit clear thathe is de-scribing an experienceof which he would muchrathernot speak (or, atleast, that he would rathernot committo writing),but that he feels forcedto do so by the exigencies of the situation.Even so, he refers only ob-liquely to the central contentof the revelation(2 Cor 12:4). It seems tofollow, then,that this vision is somehowcrucial o Paul'sclaim to apostolicauthority.Elsewhere,1 Cor 9:1 ("Am I not an apostle? Have I not seenJesus our Lord?") ndicates forcefullythat Paul bases this claim on hisvision, or visions, of Christ.

in 2 Corinthians (GrandRapids:Eerdmans, 987) 206-20; RalphP. Martin,"TheOpponentsof Paul in 2 Corinthians:An Old Issue Revisited," n GeraldF. Hawthorne ndOtto Betz,eds., Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellisfor His 60th Birthday (GrandRapids:Eerdmans ndTubingen:Mohr/Siebeck,1987)279-89;JerryL. Sumney,Identifying Paul's Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians(JSNTSup 0; Sheffield:JSOTPress,1990);Newman,Glory-Christology, 229-40; Strecker,"Die Legitimitat es paulinischenApostolates," 70-73. Theinfluential tudyof HansDieterBetz,Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (BHTh45; Tubingen:Mohr/Siebeck,1972) has shownthat in 2 Corinthians 0-13 Paul makesextensiveuse of Greekapologetictechniques, specially rony, n defendinghimselfagainst heseopponents.Betz'spenetratinganalysisof the literaryormof these chapters,however,doesnotjustify all of his conclusionsregarding heir content, and his suggestionthat 2 Cor 12:1-12 is merely a parodyof aheavenly ascent, not an autobiographical ccount, is entirely unconvincing.See further,Christopher orbes,"Comparison, elf-Praiseand Irony: Paul'sBoasting and the Conven-tions of HellenisticRhetoric,"NTS 32 (1986) 1-30.l5Seethe cogentarguments f JohnKnox,"'FourteenYearsLater':A Note on thePaulineChronology," R 16 (1936) 341-49. See further,Lightfoot,Galatians, 183; DonaldWayneRiddle,Paul, Man of Conflict: A Modern Biographical Sketch (Nashville:Cokesbury,1940)118-24 and 205.l6See, in addition o the workscitedin n. 14 above, ErnstBenz,Paulus als Visiondr: einevergleichende Untersuchung der Visionsberichte des Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte und inden paulinischen Briefen (Akademieder Wissenschaftenund der Literatur;Abhandlungender Geistes- und SozialwissenschaftlichenKlasse 1952.2;Wiesbaden:Steiner, 1952) 77-121; HelmutSaake,"Paulusals Ekstatiker:Pneumatologische eobachtungen u 2 Kor. xiil-lo, NovT 15 (1973) 152-60; Rowland,The Open Heaven, 379-80.

7/30/2019 1510011

8/29


As many scholarshave remarked,a centraltheme of this passage isPaul'scontrastbetweenhis own weaknessand the powerof Christ.l7Thiscontrast esolvesthe difficultsituation n whichhe findshimself: f he doesnot "boast"he has no answer o the claimsof his opponents,but to do sois to committhe very error or which he has castigated hem (2 Cor 10:12).2 Cor 12:8b-12 showsthat he has modeledhis positionon the exampleofJesus:just as the power of God was made manifestby the weaknessofJesus,so Paul'sweaknessmanifests he powerof Christ.Thus,Paul'svery"nothingness"s the basisof his claimto be "inferior n nothing"o the so-called super-apostles.n this way, he makesit clearthat his boasting s ofthe power of Christ, ratherthan of his own attainment compare1 Cor1 26-2:5).Warningsagainstself-exaltationwith regard o visionaryexperiencearequite common n the hekhalot iterature.Aqiba's"disclaimer"n the origi-nalpardes story("Notbecause I am greater hanmy fellows''l8) s a casein point. CompareMacasehMerkabah24:19

R. Ishmaelsaid:ntnnmpS, the Angelof the Presence,saidto me: "Sonof the noble ones, do not exalt yourselfabove all your companions,and do not say, 'EvenI, out of themall, have been worthy!' for thishas not come aboutthroughyoureffort or throughyourpower,but bythe powerof your Fatherwho is in heaven."This wamingis given to Ishmaelafterhe has uttered,by charismatic ev-elation, henamesof theangelicgatekeeperswho guard he approachhroughthe seven hekhalot o the merkabah.Whenchallengedby Nehunyah . ha-Qanahas to his rightto do this, Ishmaelresponds:

I did not do it for my own honour,but for the glory of the King ofthe Universe.2017See, or example,Georgi,Opponents, 279-80; Hans Lietzmann,An die Korinther I-II(HNT9; completedby WernerGeorgKummel; th ed.;Tubingen:Mohr/Siebeck,1969)152-77; HansDieterBetz,"DerApostelPaulus,"97-100; Barrett,Commentary, 305-6; Gunther,

Opponents, 100-101; RudolfKarl Bultmann,The Second Letter to the Corinthians (Minne-apolis:Augsburg,1985)218-30; Tabor,Things Unutterable, 34-38; Strecker,"Die Legitimi-tatdes paulinischenApostolates,"577-79.I8Seepart1:HZ/MR, A2b(p. 196);GenizafragmentA/B5 (p. 198);Cant. R. A44-45 (p.213).I9Scholem,ewish Gnosticism, appendixC,113; Schafer, ynopse, 584; NaomiJanowitz,The Poetics of Ascent: Theories of Language in a Rabbinic Ascent Text (Albany:StateUni-versityof New YorkPress,1989) 54 (lines 0779-0784); MichaelD. Swartz,Mystical Prayerin Ancient Judaism: An Analysis of Ma'aseh Merkabah (Texte und Studienzum AntikenJudentum 8; Tubingen:Mohr/Siebeck,1992) 242.

20Ma'aseh Merkabah 26: Scholem,Jewish Gnosticism, 113; Schafer,Synopse, 586;Janowitz,Poetics, 55 (lines 0812-20); Swartz,Mystical Prayer, 242.

7/30/2019 1510011

9/29

272 HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW

Paul'sunwillingness o boast on his own account s at least consistentwiththese traditions.This reticenceexplainsthe curious ormulation f 2 Cor 12:2-5. MortonSmith interpretedhese verses literally,arguing hat the "man n Christ" sJesus, rather han Paul himself.2lThis interpretation,owever, s unable oaccount or 2 Cor 12:7a, n which Paul makes t clear that the "revelations"(asoKaRzls) referred o in 2 Cor 12:1 are in fact his own. The vastmajorityof commentators, rom Irenaeusonward,22 ave recognizedthatPaul must be speakingof his own experience.This understanding f thepassage has been challenged by M. D. Goulder,23who argued that theterms asoKaRzls and ostaolal have differentmeaningswithin Paul's

vocabulary.According to Goulder,Paul was unable to compete with hisopponents' laim to have experiencedheavenlyascents,with accompanyingangelic revelations ostaolal), and was, moreover, ehementlyopposed osuch practices:WherePaul can compete s in asoKakuls, the second categoryofheavenlyexperiences, ncursionsof the divine on earth in fact he hashad so many such experiences hat God gave him the stake in the fleshto slake his pride. But the osxaolul were a most dangerousclaim.Once it is accepted hat a man has been to heaven,and has been givena message by an angel, his power is virtuallyunlimited.24

Goulder's xegesis must, however,be rejected. n the first place, it requiresus to understandhat Paul was prepared o "boast" f the experienceof anunknown hirdparty (in Goulder's iew, a friend), while at the same timedenying the validity of such claims. Second, Goulder cites no extemalevidence to supporthis proposeddistinctionbetween axoKaRzls andosxaolal.25 His argumentat this point is circular: he sole basis for theproposeddistinction s his exegesis of the passage which, in tum, is basedon this distinction.Admittedly,we should not assume that the two termsare precisely synonymous,but thereare no grounds or the assumption hatthe distinction s between"heavenly" nd "earthly" isions. It seems moreprobable hat oxtasia (= Hebrewmar'ahor hazon?)refers to the visualelement of the experienceand asoKaRzvls (gilluy or 'erwah?) o its au-ditory or conceptualcontent.Finally, the issue at stake between Paul andhis opponentsdoes not concem visions of angels, but visions "of the Lord"

2IMorton Smith, "Ascent to the Heavens and the Beginning of Christianity," ErJb 50981)403-29.22Irenaeus Adversus haereses 5.5.1.23M. D. Goulder, "The Visionaries of Laodicea," JSNT 43 (1991) 5-39,sp. 18-20.24Ibid., 19.25Barrett Commentary,307) bserved that Luke uses osxacyla of earthly visions; Goulder

("Visionaries," 19 n. 1) acknowledges this observation, but discounts it.

7/30/2019 1510011

10/29


(2 Cor 12:1). Earlier n the letter,he has characterized is opponentsas"false apostles"who have disguisedthemselvesas apostlesof Christbutare in realityagentsof Satan,the deceiver(2 Cor 11:13-15). Theseoppo-nentsboastin order o be recognizedas Paul'sequals(2 Cor 11:12),whichmust mean that they too claim to have experienced"visionsand revela-tions" of Christ (not a lesser angel). Paul clearly regardsthis claim asspurious,but he is forced to counterit by referring o his own genuinevision of the Lord.Nowheredoes he contestthe validityof suchexperiencein principle: ndeed,to do so wouldbe to underminehe very basis of hisown apostolicclaim.Although orcedto cite his vision in defenseof his apostolicauthority,Paul is unwillingto claimit as a personalattainment.The "man n Christ"formula hus reflectshis discomfortover the issue of "boasting" ndmayrepresentan attemptto observe the pseudepigraphic onventionof theapocalyptic-mysticalradition,26ven thoughto do so completelywouldofcoursedefeathis purpose.Theformulamayalso possessa deeper,mysticalsignificance. haveelsewherepointedout thatin the apocalyptic-merkabahtradition he ascent into heavenand the vision of the kabod(whomPaulidentifieswith Christ)involves a transfolmation f the visionaryinto anangelicor supra-angelicikenessof this gloryor divineimage,andthatthisseems to be the background f Paul'sconceptof "glorification"for ex-ample,Rom 8:29;2 Cor3:18).27The "man n Christ"s thusPaul's"heav-enly self' or "apostolic dentity,"which is conformed o the imageof theenthronedand glorified Christand thereforepossesses "power"and di-vinely conferredauthority."Thisman"is contrastedwith Paul'searthly,humanself.28Thus,just as Paul'searthlypersonalitys confolmedto thatof the earthlyJesus (characterized y "weakness," Cor 12:9-11), so his"heavenlybeing" s conformed o the imageof Christ-as-kabodcharacter-ized by "power").We may compare2 Cor 4:18 ("whilewe live, we are

26RowlandTheOpenHeaven,242-45) andSegal(Paul theConvert,58-59) interpretheformula n this way.27SeeC. R. A. Morray-Jones,Transformational ysticism n theApocalyptic-MerkabahTradition,"JS43 (1992) 1-31. CompareTabor,ThingsUnutterable, 0-19, andSegal,PaultheConvert,34-71. Inthepassagescitedabove,Paulextendsthispromiseof transformation(which is apparentlyboth a futureevent and an ongoing process) to all those who havebecome"participatingmembers" f the glorifiedbodyof Christ.It seemsthatthe transfor-mationalaspect of the heavenly ascent was at an early period transferredo the rite ofbaptism.This transferences also foundin GnosticandSyriacChristian ources,anda fewJewishtexts associatereceptionof the divinename,whichis a key elementof the heavenlytransformationn the apocalyptic-merkabahradition,with ritual immersion.See further,AprilD. De ConnickandJarlFossum,"StrippedBeforeGod:A NewInterpretationf Logion37 in the Gospel of Thomas,"VC45 (1991) 123-50.28Compare owland,TheOpenHeaven,384-86.

7/30/2019 1510011

11/29


always being givenup to death orJesus'sake, so thatthe life of Jesusmaybe made visible in our mortal lesh") and Gal 2:20 ("it is no longer I wholive, but Christwithin me"). The same theme occurs at Eph 2:6, wheretheauthorstates thatGod "raisedus up with him and seated us with him inthe heavenly places," while Eph 4:24 speaks of "the new self, createdaccordingto the likeness of God."Retuming to 2 Corinthians12, it isPaul's identity with the celestial "man in Christ" on whose behalf he iswilling to boast, 2 Cor 12:5) that is the source of his power andauthorityalthough,paradoxically,t is his personal"weakness"hatenables hispowerto be manifest. This theme of conformitywith Christis at the heartofPaul's apostolic claim (compare 1 Cor 11 1; 1 Thess 1:6). As JamesD.Taborhas commented,

The apostle is the mediatorof divine power in the world and theguarantor f the "success of the enterprise."He not only speaks "in"or "for"Christ,but in a representativeense is Christmanifest n theworld.29

In 2 Cor 12:6, Paul explains his unwillingness,under normalcircum-stances,to boast of his mysticalattainments n the grounds hat he wishesto be given creditonly for his wordsand deeds. This idea is picked up in2 Cor 12:11-12, in which he explainsthat he has been compelled o aban-don his usualrestraint nd to commendhimself becauseof the Corinthians'failure o commendhim despite he"signsand wondersandworksof power"that he has performedamong them. These works, which Paul evidentlyfeels shouldprecludehis need to boast, are the evidence of his apostolicauthorityand clearly connected n his mind with the "visions and revela-tions" by which this authoritywas conferreduponhim. He seems here tobe makinga claim for himself that is reminiscentof the openingsectionsof HekhalotRabbati, where the merkabah dept is said to possess sevenkinds of"greatness" (presumably, elated in some way to the sevenfoldcosmic structure f the hekhalot):30

29Tabor,hings Unutterable, 23.30ffilekhalotRabbati 1.2-2.3 (Schafer, Synopse, 81b-93), abbreviated where indicated.On this passage, see Peter Schafer, "Gershom Scholem Reconsidered: The Aim and Purposeof Early Jewish Mysticism" (12th Sacks Lecture; Oxford: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate

Hebrew Studies, 1986) 15-16; reprinted as idem, "The Aim and Purpose of Early JewishMysticism," in idem, Alekhalot-Studien, 292-93; and idem, Der verborgene und offenbareGott. Alauptthemenderfruken judischen Mystik (Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991) 41-44, nowavailable in English as idem, The Alidden and Manifest God (Albany: State University of NewYork Press, 1992) 43-45; Halperin, Faces, 44041; Gerd A. Wewers, "Die Uberlegenheit desMystikers: zur Aussage der Gedulla-Hymnen in Hekhalot Rabbati 1,2-2,3," JSJ 17 (1986) 3-22. Wewers has translated the passage in full (excluding Schafer, Synopse, 93). See alsoPeter Schafer, ed., Ubersetzung der Alekhalot Literatur (4 vols. [vol. 1 as yet unpublished];

7/30/2019 1510011

12/29


t 2Greatness eyond them all (oJl:: ;151n:),31that he is able) to bind(the angels) to himself,32compelling hem)to admithim and leadhiminto the chambersof the palace of 'Arabot-Raqia'ndto place him onthe right of the throneof glory, and (thathe is able), when he standsoppositen1n-Cws7:,he God of Israel,33 o see all that is done beforethe throneof his glory andto know all that is going to happen n theworld.l 3Greatness eyondthemall, for he sees and discernsall the deedsofmen, even when they are performed n secret,distinguishingbetweenworthy anddisgracefulactions. If a mansteals, he knows it andrec-ognizes him. If one commitsadultery,he knows it andrecognizeshim.If one murders,he knows it and recognizes him....} 4Greatness eyond them all, for anyonewho raises his handagainsthim and strikes him will be clothed with plague and covered withleprosy and crownedwith boils. Greatnessbeyond them all, for any-one who speaksevil of him will have castupon himplaguesof ulcers,dreadfulwounds and sores drippingpus.I sGreatnessbeyond themall, for he is set apart rom all the sons ofmen, feared in all his characteristics ndhonoredby those aboveandthose below....I 6Greatness eyond them all, for all creaturesbeforehim are like sil-ver to a smith.He knows which silver is blemishedandwhich hasbeenpurified.He examinesa family (anddiscerns)how manybastardshereare, how many sons of impure ntercourse here are, how manyeu-nuchs thereare, how many men with severed members here are....2lGreatness eyond hemall, for everyonewho hardenshis face againsthim will be struckblind....22Greatnessbeyond, for the heavenlybet-din blows the plain note,then the tremolo, then the plain note again, and they pronounce he

Texteund StudienzumAntikenJudentum 7, 22, 29;Tubingen:Mohr/Siebeck,1987-) 2. 1-10. 3ITheprecisemeaningof this uniqueexpression s unclear.Schafer "Gershom cholemReconsidered,"15-16; idem, Ubersetzung, . 1-10; idem, Die verborgeneund offenbareGott, 4143) offers: "Greatestof all is the fact that.... " ("Die alle ubertreffende rolSebestehtdarin,dalS.... ") but compareWewers "Uberlegenheit,"-9) "Onegreatnessamongthem all is...." ("EineGrolSe on ihnen allen ist.... "; Schafernotes that this is possible).Halperin Faces, 440) offers: "Greaterhanall of them: . ., " which conveys the probablesense of the expressionbut not thegrammaticalonstruction.Wewers "Uberlegenheit,"n.36) suggests that Exod 18:11 and/orm. 'Abot 6.5-7 may lie behindthe expression.32FollowingWewers "Uberlegenheit,"); Schafer Ubersetzung, . 2): "that hey [i.e. theangels] bind themselvesto him" ("daB ie sich ihmverbinden").33See he following note.

7/30/2019 1510011

13/29


lesser ban, then the lesser banagain, then the greaterban, three timesevery day since the time when permissionwas given to the pure,tothe humble, o the meek, to the discerning, o the upright, o the pious,to the chosen, to those set apart, o the righteousand to the perfect,to descend and ascend to the merkabah, o say: "Let him be underaban!" o UlN'-tDSA)D,he God of Israel,34 o him, to his glorious throne,to the crownof his head, to the bet-din on high,to the bet-din below,to all the host of heaven,and to all his ministerswho stand beforehim, attending o the merkabah nd serving him.2 3R. Ishmael said: It is taught thus concerningthe vision of themerkabah one who attends he merkabah as permission o standuponly in these three cases: beforethe king, beforethe high priest, andbefore the sanhedrinwhen the Nasi' is present.But if the Nasi' is notpresent,he may not stand up even before the sanhedrin.And if hedoes standup, "his blood is upon his own head"because he lessenshis days and shortenhis years.

This text is, admittedly,more crudely melodramatichan Paul'sstate-ment, but the claim that it makesis essentiallysimilar.Supernaturalowerand authorityare conferredupon the one who attainsto the vision of themerkabah, ndthis person unctionsas God'semissaryand (eschatological?)judge of bothIsraeland the angels.In PeterSchafer's ords,"TheMerkavah

34Aceording to the majority of the manuseripts: tsmsS nts ;nln9-ss:t 81n8:n8 :nnlbl.Sehafer (Ubersetzung, 2 9) and Wewers ("Uberlegenheit," 8), assuming ,n1n4S: to be Godhimself, translated the preposition j by "for" ("fur"), implying that the adept is empoweredto pronounee the ban on God's behalf. The use of the eonstruetion j . . .nnlt to mean "tosay. . . on behalf of," however, would be unusual. Alternatively, the preposition may beinterpreted as an expression of the genitive, eonneeting n1,9-Cw: to 81n:: "and to pronouncethe ban of ,n1n-Cw:, the God of Israel." MS Munieh 22, whieh substitutes ts for 5, evidentlyunderstands the eonstruetion in this way, but expression of the genitive by 5, ratherthan ts,is rare in rabbinie Hebrew. By far the most natural interpretation of j ...nnlt is "to say....to" (or, which amounts to the same thing, "to say. . . with regard to"). The problem is thatthis would apparently mean that the adept is empowered to excommunieate God, whiehseems unlikely. The interpretation, however, is supported by MSS Vatican 228 and Leiden Or.4730, whieh substitute n:: for t. This ean only mean "to pronounce a ban against" and istherefore lectio difficilior. In Merkabah Rabbah (Sehafer, Synopse, 678) the formula: ,n1,tsmsS nttt is appended to the name of the angelie vieeregent Metatron (see Sehafer, Derverborgene und offenbare Gott, 111), and angels whose names include the inlin8-elementrevery frequently encountered in the hekhalot literature (see further, Morray-Jones, "Transfor-mational Mysticism," 7-10, and the references cited there). It may, therefore, be that -Cw:nl;n' s here the angelic head of the celestial hierarchy. This interpretation is supported by theobservation that in Hekhalot Rabbati 1.2 the adept stands beside (on the right of) God'sthrone, but opposite inl,8-ss:. If this view is correct, the meaning is that the adept's authorityis second only to that of God himself, that it exceeds that of the heavenly and earthly courts,and that he is empowered to judge and excommunicate even the celestial viceregent and hisretinue. Compare 1 Cor 6:3: "Do you not know that we are to judge angels?"

7/30/2019 1510011

14/29


mystic s the chosenone of God to whommessianicqualitiesare ascribed."35Gerd A. Wewers infers that this passage was written against the back-groundof a social environment hat the writerperceived as hostile andtowardwhich he adoptedan attitudeof patient,passive sufferingbasedonthe "servant"modelencounteredn prophecyand the Psalms.36Despitehispersonalpowerlessness, he adept is vindicatedby the intervention f di-vine poweron his behalfand possessesdivinely conferred uthority o passeschatologicaludgmenton his adversaries.Like Schafer,Wewersobserves"thatthe mystic aligned his self-portrayalwith eschatological ndividuals(Elijah, the messiah)and saw himself as corresponding losely to thesefigures (or identifiedhimself with them?)."37

The adept's uperior, evealedknowledge s opposed o thatconferredbyexotericand halakhicnorahscholarship,whichindicates hathis opponentsare membersof the scholasticrabbinic stablishment.Wewerssuggeststhatthis compositionmay be a responseto a specific historicalsituation,al-though it can no longerbe identified.The writer'sviewpoint,however, issimilar o that of several(Jewishand Christian) pocalypticauthors,anditis probablybetterto regard he passage as one productof a tradition hatwas adapted,over the course of several centuries,by manydifferentsec-tariangroups n situations f conflictwith others,morepowerful hanthem-selves. The situation nferredby Wewers s in severalrespectsvery similarto that addressedby Paul who, in his claim to conformitywith Christ,assumes he "servant" ole. The statementhatthe merkabah dept'sauthor-ity is given "to the pure, to the humble, to the meek"is reminiscentofPaul's contrastbetween"power"and "weakness."The visionaryascent to heavenof whichPaul is driven to boast seems,then, to be of crucial importance o his claim to apostolicauthorityandpower.Thereare grounds,moreover, or supposinghatthiswas a merkabahvision, with Christ dentifiedas the enthronedkabod.This hypothesiswillbe strengthenedf clear parallelscan be demonstrated etweenPaul'sac-count and the hekhalot/talmudicardes story.The relationship etween he "thirdheaven"of 2 Cor 12:2and the "para-dise" of 2 Cor 12:4 requiresconsideration.Are verses 2 and 3-4 to beunderstoodsequentiallyor in parallel?If a seven-heavencosmology isassumed,either interpretations theoreticallypossible, but it seems mostunlikely that Paul wouldhave basedhis claimto apostolicauthority n anascent merelyto the thirdof sevenheavens,which wouldhardlyqualify asan "exceptional" evelation(2 Cor 12:7a).Moreover,our analysis of the35Schafer,"Gershom Scholem Reconsidered," 16 (= idem, Hekhalot-Studien,93). Com-

pare Tabor on Paul (ThingsUnutterable, 3; quoted above p. 274).36Wewers, "Uberlegenheit," 20-23.37Ibid., 21.

7/30/2019 1510011

15/29


Jewishmystical radition as shownthatpardes was a termfor the celestialHoly of Holies in the uppermostheaven. The seven-heavenmodel must,then, imply a "two-stage" scent,first to the thirdheavenand subsequentlyto paradise in the seventh.38There is, however, no parallel for this inapocalypticor Jewish mysticalliterature.Normally, he ascent throughallsix lower levels to the seventhis described or at least mentioned)unless(as at Rev 4:1-2, for example)the visionaryproceedsdirectlyto the high-est heaven withoutmentionof intervening evels. Nowhere, o my knowl-edge, does the elevator stop, so to speak, on only one intermediateloor.Since there s evidencefor an alternative, nd probably arlier, hree-heavencosmology, it seems most naturalto assume that this is the model em-ployed by Paul.39This assumptions confirmedby the elegant analysis ofHans Bietenhard,40 ho has demonstratedhat 2 Cor 12:1-5 are a sym-metricalcomposition, he secondhalf of whichrepeatsand expandsuponthe first. Thus,2 Cor 12:5 picks up the theme of "boasting"ntroducedn2 Cor 12:1 andadds the themeof "weakness,"while 2 Cor 12:3-4 repeatsthe statement n 2 Cor 12:2 ("paradise" "the third heaven")with anadditional eportof a secret, unutterable evelation. t seems virtuallycer-tain, then, that Paul'sparadisewas located in the uppermost f threeheav-ens.

The continuation f the pardes story in HekhalotZu.tarti eservescon-sideration:41

A R. Aqibasaid: At that time, when I ascended o the merkabah, bat-qol wentforth from beneath he throneof glory, speaking n the Ara-maic tongue.In this tongue,what did it say?B "Beforethe LORD made heavenand earth,he established. . . . in Raqia', o go in by and to come out by [scribalgloss:38Rowland (The Open Heaven, 380-82) and Tabor (Things Unutterable, 115-20) interpretthe passage in this way.39Ralph P. Martin (Second Corinthians [Word Biblical Commentary 40; Waco: Word,

1986] 401-3) and Young ("The Ascension Motif," 90), for example, have defended thisinterpretation.

40Bietenhard,Alimmlische Welt, 162-68.4lSchafer, Synopse, 348-52; Rachel Elior, Alekhalot Zutarti (Jerusalem Studies in Jew-

ish Thought Suppl. 1; Jerusalem: Magnes,1982) 23-25, lines 59-99. The opening words, "R.Aqiba said: At that time, when I ascended to the Merkabah, a bat-qol went forth. . ., etc."are also found in the two manuscripts of Merkabah Rabbah that contain the pardes story(Schafer, Synopse, 674). See further, Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 77-78; Schafer, Derverborgene und offenbare Gott, 56-59; and idem, Ubersetzung, 3. 17-24.42This word is different in all five manuscripts in Schafer, Synopse and in the Genizafragment 7.T.-S.k21.95.B. (in Schafer, Geniza-Fragmente, 90-91) but none of the versionsis meaningful (O: nn:n; N: smm:n;D: ,rtl:; M40: ,:r::; M22: smr:n; G7: sm:n:). (O = Oxford;N = New York; D = Dropsie; M40 = Munich 40; M22 = Munich 22; G7 = Geniza fragment.)

7/30/2019 1510011

16/29


and. . . . . means nothing other than 'gateway' 81m:)].He established he irrefutablename, with which to design the entireuniverse.

C "And what man is ableTo ascend on high?To ride the chariot-wheels?To descend below?To explore the world?To walk on the dry ground?To behold his splendor?To [?] unbind43 is crown?To be transformednto his glory?44To utter praise?To combine letters?To utter names?To behold what is on high?And to behold what is below?To know the meaningof the living?And to see the vision of the dead?To walk in rivers of fire?And to know the lightning?

D "Andwho is able to explain, and who is able to see? First of all it iswritten: For no man may see me and live' (Exod 33:20); and in thesecond place it is written: ForGod speaksto man, and he lives' (DeutIn the following gloss, all except G7 give a differentform again. (O: inn t:; N: ,n tt:; D,M40: ;nnt:; M22: ;nnl8t:; 7: smn8n). chafer Ubersetzung, . 18 nn. 14 and 19) has arguedthatG7 gives the best reading,since the gloss at least agrees with the text (assuming: to bethe preposition"like"or "as").Scholem(JewishGnosticism, 7-78) and IthamarGruenwald(Apocalyptic nd MerkavahMysticism AGJU 14; Leiden:Brill, 1980] 148) both translated"vestibule"on the basis of the gloss ("lmn;G7 reads: ,Rn8n). Possibly, s:8:n ("building")should be read.43Reading smsRJ thusO, D, M22)as 'afa'el infinitiveof 8ns (M40:nns8RJ [meaningless];N omits his word).CompareScholem(JewishGnosticism,78), "to dwell with,"and see Sch-afer, Ubersetzung, . 19 n. 11.44This xpression s uncertain,but highly significant.The manuscripts eadas follows: N:snpRm nnnsnJ ("to be praised n glory";Scholem [JewishGnosticism,78] offers "to praisethe glory");M22: snp"nm: ;nn8nJmeaninguncertain,perhaps:"to become old [or learned]with honor";O: ,nmpn n:X;nnn5;, M40: snp"n :X;nnn5. he above translation s based onO. If the reference s to the divine glory (note that n the previous ines the possessive suffixrefers to God), it must meaneither:"to be transformednto his glory"(as above) or ". . . byhis glory." Alternatively, t may refer to the mystic's own glory: "to be transformedn hisglory." D and M40 are identical, save that they omit the possessive suffix. They couldthereforemean "to be transformednto the (divine) glory," or". . . by the (divine) glory,"or ". . . in glory." Whatever he precise meaning, he readingof these three manuscripts san importantwitness to the themeof "transformational ysticism" n the hekhalot radition.

7/30/2019 1510011

17/29


5:21/24); and in the thirdplace it is written: I saw the LORDsittingupon a throne. . ' etc. (Isa 6:11).E "What s his name?n:S:tl: n S^l X:: :S::,45 who is the completelyHoly One, whoseheavenlyhosts are fire!:':^ "l:: 1S':nln T":QR ':t "l nllS ' Q^l, . . . sitting on a high andexalted throne.... Holy! Holy! Holy is the LORD of Hosts! Thewhole earth s full of his glory!'(Isa 6:1-3), '. . . Blessed be the gloryof the LORD from his place!'(Ezek 3:12),

dlp: nPpn:9: p9^9 bl: pB: n^ lPl: 'P: l:P nPnS ' l'dPldlb":lR"n:e ::Ps sn ^'?^l ill, beforewhom srael46ay: 'A glorioushigh thronefrom the beginning [is the place of our sanctuary]'Jer 17:12).

F "His holy ones on high say: 'We see (him) like the appearance flightning!'His prophets ay: 'We see (him) in a dream-vision, ike aman who sees visions in the night.'Thekings who are uponearthsay:':Sn:mn:spl5s' [corrupt ext?]. But our rabbis47 ay: 'He is, so tospeak, ike us, but he is greater haneverything and this is his glory,which is hiddenfromus.' Moses says to them, to these and those: 'Donot investigatewith your words,but let him be praised n his place!'Therefore t is said:Blessed be the glory of theLORD romhis place!"Thispassage s significant n severalrespects.SectionA states hatAqiba,like Paul, heardwords when he ascendedto paradise.B seems to refer,especially if the scribalgloss is correct, o the heavenlytemple wherethe"irrefutable ame"residesand, in any case, concernsthe time beforethecreationof the universe, n otherwords,the forbiddenmysteriesof mMasehbere'it.C is a summary f the mysteriesrevealedto the ascendingapoca-lyptichero andthe attainments f the merkabah dept.48There are severalechoes of m. .Hag. .1. As SchSfer as observed, hejuxtaposition f threeapparentlycontradictory erses (D) introduces, n a traditionalrabbinicmanner, he question"whetherman can see God at all and, if so, thenwho,and whathe looks like."49The answerto this question,according o whatfollows, is thatexceptional ndividualsmay,like Isaiah,beholdGod'sname(the LORD),embodied n his glory.The following passage,of which E and

4sThemagicalnames aregiven according o MSOxford.46FollowingM22. The othermanuscripts ead sl for 5Rmsl(thus: "and here arethosewho say. . . ") but this reading s presumablybasedon an abbreviation.47Nreads, "R.Aqiba says. . . "48Compare owland,The Open Ieaven, 75-189.49Schafer, er verborgene und offenbare Gott, 56 (comparedem, Ubersetzung, 3. 20 n.1).

7/30/2019 1510011

18/29


F are only the beginning,concerns he vision of the kabodand the myster-ies of the divine name (of which the kabod is the embodiment).E estab-lishes a link between the kabod in the preexistentcelestial sanctuaryandthe earthlytemple. F discusses the manner n which the kabod is seen byvariouscategoriesof being. The saying attributedo "ourrabbis"alludestothe esoteric doctrineof the Pi'urqomah.The section culminates n a warn-ing, attributedo Moses, that this is not a matter or rationalunderstandingor verbal definition.We may compare he following, from an anonymousmedieval Yemenite commentary n the Song of Songs:50It was said in the presence of RabbanGamaliel:Thoughcreatedbe-ings do not have permission o declare the true being of the Creator,they do have permission o declareHis praise. How so? As it is writ-ten: "for no man shall see me and live" (Exod 33:20). Life dependsupon his praise, but his true being is concealed.

The following sections of HekhalotZutarti ontaindetaileddescriptionsofthe hayyot holy living creatures), he merkabah, nd the kabod, ncludingmuchKi'ur omahmaterialand long stringsof magicalnamesof God. Thus,the words heardby Aqiba when he ascended o the merkabahn paradise,or the celestial sanctuary, concerned the central mysteries of ma'asehmerkabah: hat is, the innerrnostmysteries of God's being, which cannotand may not be described in words, but are only partially known andexpressed throughthe medium of mystical praise. This is a remarkablyclose parallel o Paul's"unutterable ordswhich it is not permitted or manto speak"(2 Cor 12:4).51The natureof Paul's"thorn or stake) in the flesh" (2 Cor 12:7b-8) hasbeen the subject of much speculation.52Most modernscholars, following

50Published y MorizFriedlander, Teh.llatPirusSir-ha-irimMe'orabmi-LasonEberwe-'Arab," n FestschriftzumachtzigstenGeburtstageMoritzSteinschneider's Leipzig:Harras-sowitzX 896) Hebrewsection, 49-59 (the quotation s on p. 58). On the antiquityof muchof the material reserved y this source,see A. Marmonstein, Deuxrenseignements 'Origeneconcernantes Juifs,"REJ71 (1920) 195-99; and Saul Lieberman,Midrestei-Teiman2d ed.;Jerusalem:Wahrmann,1970)12-l9[Hebrew];seefurtheridem,"MisnatSir-ha-Sirim"(ap-pendix D of Scholem,Jewish Gnosticism)123-24. It is tempting,althoughperhapsoverop-timistic, to conjecture hat this traditiongoes back to RabbanGamaliel he Elder, who wasthe first of six nesi'im o bear his nameandtitle, andwho was allegedlyclaimedas a teacherby Paul (Acts 22:3).5lContra, or example, Kasemann,"Die Legitimitatdes Apostels," 63-64, who arguesthat Paul uses this expression o emphasize he private, ncommunicable atureof his expe-rience and to deny that any claim to authority an be based on such experiences.See furthern. 64 below.52For usefulsummary f previous cholarship n this ssue, see Martin, econdCorinthians,410-23.

7/30/2019 1510011

19/29


the earliestrecorded hurch radition,53nd takingq sapKI literally,haveargued hat the expressionrefers to an illness or disability,also mentionedat Gal 4:13-14. Various "diagnoses"have been offered on the basis ofthese two passages.54 ome commentators,ightlyperceiving hat he "thorn"is closely associated n Paul'smind with his "exceptional"evelations,havesuggesteda nervouscomplaint for example,epilepsy,hysteria,or migraine)caused by, or associated with, his ecstatic and visionary experience.55According o this view, the parallelexpression yos aTava indicatesthat Paul believed that a demonic assault had caused his illness. Othershave argued n favor of an interpretationirst proposedby Chrysostom,56namely, hat Paul is referring o a human nemy or enemies at whose handshe has sufferedpersecution.57 his view has been persuasivelydefendedbyTerence Y. Mullins who, citing similar expressions n the SeptuagintatNum 33:55, Ezek 28:24, and elsewhere, showed that Paul'sreaderswouldhave recognizedAKOXO8I T13 AapKI as a literary diom for an enemy.58RobertM. Price has pointedout, however,that this theoryfails to accountfor the close connection hat exists in Paul'smind betweenthe "thorn" ndthe visionaryexperienceand suggestedthat the reference s to an angelicopponentsimilar to the gatekeepersof the hekhalot radition,who attackand punishthose deemedunworthy o ascendto the merkabah.59his viewis consistent with Paul's emphasison his "weakness" nd his dependenceupon the power of Christ.If Price's interpretations adopted,several noteworthy orrespondencesbetweenPaul'saccountand the Jewishpardes story become apparent.The"angelof Satan" s reminiscent f the demonic"angelsof destruction" ho

53IrenaeusAdversushaereses 5.3.1; Tertullian Pud. 13.6;and Marc. 5.12.54See BAG, s.v. AKOXOv, 441b-42a, and KoXat4Xs 763b-64a; and further, for ex-

ample, Lightfoot, Galatians, 186-91; Neil Gregor Smith, "The Thorn that Stayed:An Inter-pretation of II Corinthians 12:7-9,"Int 13 (1959) 409-16; F. F. Bruce, I and2 Corinthians(NCB Commentary; GrandRapids: Eerdmans and London: Marshall, Morgan, & Scott, 1980)248-49; Gerhard Delling, AKOXOv, TDNT7 (1971) 409-13; Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians:ACommentaryn Paul's Letter o the Churches n Galatia(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress,1979) 224-26.

s5Thus,for example: Windisch,Der zweiteKorintherbrief;arl Ludwig Schmidt, Kokat 4x,TDNT3 (1965) 818-21.56ChrysostomfIom. 26 on 2 Corinthians.57Thus, for example: Ph. H. Menoud, "L'echardeet l'ange satanique (2 Cor. 12, 7)," in J.

N. Sevenster and W. C. van Unnik, eds., Studia Paulina in fIonoremJohannis de ZwaanSeptuagenariiHaarlem: Bohn, 1953) 163-71;Michael L. Barre, "Qumranand the Weaknessof Paul," CBQ42 (1980) 216-27; Jerry W. McCant, "Paul's Thorn of Rejected Apostleship,"NTS 34 (1988) 550-72.58Terence Y. Mullins, "Paul's Thorn in the Flesh," JBL 76 (1957) 299-303.

59RobertM. Price, "Punished in Paradise (An Exegetical Theory on II Corinthians 12:1-10),"SNT7 (1980) 33-40. Price's suggestion is in part anticipated by Windisch, Der zweiteKorintherbrief, 82-90.

7/30/2019 1510011

20/29


seek to "do violence"to Aqiba (HekhalotZu.tarti nd MerkabahRabbahC2b). We also recall that one of the four was C4stricken"nipgM), ndthisis precisely the meaningof the verb Kokal4@ employedby Paul. If thiscorrespondences morethancoincidental,hePaulineaccountandthepardesstory at this point explain each other. This interpretations by no meansinconsistentwith the theory of a nervous illness or reaction to ecstaticexperience,whichPaul believed to be caused by the angel'sblows. Indeed,the geonic interpretation f the expressionas referring o madness,whichis not too far removed rom that of the earliestChristian ommentators,anbe said to support his view. Finally, Paul'sreport hat he besoughtChristto makehis torrnentoreave himcorrespondso God's nterarentionn behalfof Aqiba "Leave his elder alone" HekhalotZu.tartindMerkabahRabbahC2b;BabylonianTalmud,AS8).60The cumulative weight of the evidence seems overwhelming:Paul'saccountof his ascentto paradiseand the Jewishpardes storyhavecommonroots in the mysticaltradition.An enigmaticquality,due to the reticentandellipticalmannerof description, s common to both accounts.The corre-spondencesof detail indicatethatthey are even more closely relatedthanhas previously been suggested.We may conclude, then, that Paul is de-scribingan ascent to the heavenlytemple and a merkabah ision of theenthroned nd "glorified"Christ.The context in which his accountoccurssuggests that he bases his claim to apostolic authorityon this vision."Merkabahmysticism"was, therefore,a central eatureof Paul'sexperienceand self-understanding. ince this is so, there are no grounds or the as-sumption hat his visions werepurelyspontaneous,nvoluntary vents. It isquiteprobable hatthey were inducedby the use of a mysticaltechnique,which may have been less elaborate han some of those described n thehekhalot sources but cannot have been markedlydifferentin its essen-tials.6lAs Taborhas argued,62he expression"caughtup" apsavXa: 2Cor 12:2;ilpsan: 2 Cor 12:4) in no way implies the absence of such a

60Ithas generally been assumed that "three times" implies three separate occasions. Giventhe fact that visions of Christ were a regular feature of Paul's experience (see further below,p. 284 n. 66), and if the reference is to a chronic or recurring complaint, this may be so. Price,however, has pointed out ("Punished," 35) that the text carries no such implication (compareMark 14:35-39) and argued that Paul is describing a single event in his visionary experience.Young ("The Ascension Motif," 81) suggests, plausibly enough, that the "three times" cor-responds to Paul's passage through the three celestial spheres.

61Compare Segal, Paul the Convert, 33-39. Young ("The Ascension Motif," 80, 84) isambivalent on this point. On the one hand, he recognizes the background in Jewish mysticismof Paul's visions but, on the other, he is anxious to distinguish between Paul's experience ("anextraordinary religious encounter") and ;'an extreme esoteric and sometimes self-inducedmysticism." This proposed distinction appears to be motivated by theological considerations,however, and is not supported by historical analysis.62Tabor,Things Unutterable, 1 15-16.

7/30/2019 1510011

21/29


technique,nor does the use of a mysticalmethod mplythat the experienceis wholly "self-achieved" ather handivinely "granted."63Finally, the questionof the historicalevent to which Paul refersremainsto be considered.The majorityof scholars have denied any connectionbetweenthis event and Paul'svisions recorded lsewhere.This view, how-ever, is often associatedwith a tendentiousdesire to prove that visionaryexperiencewas of no more thanmarginal mportanceo Paul.64This is adistortionof the context in which 2 Corinthians 2 occurs, is contradictedby the whole recordof Paul'scareer,and does not deserve seriousconsid-eration.65 amesD. Taborand Alan F. Segal, on the contrary,maintain hatvisionarymysticismwas a central eatureof Paul'sexperienceand thatthe

practice of the heavenly ascent was repeatedmany times during his ca-reer.66This view is almost certainlycorrect,but the inference hat Paul is63CompareMa'asehMerkabah 24, above p. 271.64Those who hold such a view include Kasemann, "Die Legitimitat des Apostels," 67-71;

idem, Perspectiveson Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 134; William David Davies, Pauland RabbinicJudaism London: SPCK, 1948) 87, 196-97; Walter David Stacey, ThePaulineViewof Man(London: Macmillan and New York: St. Martin's Press, 1956) 139-40; Georgi,Opponents, 77-83; Walter Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth:Eine Untersuchung u denKorintherbriefen2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 197-206; Lietzmann,Andie Korinther,155, 212; Barrett, "Paul's Opponents," 244-45; idem, Commentary,02-6; Gunther, Opponents, 76-77; Russell P. Spittler, "The Limits of Ecstasy: an Exegesis of2 Corinthians 12: 1-10," in Gerald F. Hawthorne, ed., Current ssues inBiblicalandPatristicalInterpretation:Studies in Honor of Merrill C. TenneyPresentedby his FormerStudents(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1975) 259-66; Bultmann,SecondLetter, 18-30; Andrew T. Lincoln,"'Paul the Visionary': The Setting and Significance of the Rapture to Paradise in II CorinthiansXII 1-10," NTS25 (1978) 204-20, esp. 211; idem, ParadiseNowand Not Yet:Studies n theRole of the HeavenlyDimension n Paul's ThoughtwithSpecialReference o hisEschatology(SNTSMS 43; London/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981) 71-85; Victor PaulFurnish, II Corinthians,Translatedwith Introduction,Notes and CommentaryAB 32A;Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) 542-46; William Baird, "Visions, Revelation and Ministry:Reflections on 2 Cor 12:1-5 and Gal 1:11-17," JBL 104 (1985) 651-62; Martin, SecondCorinthians,387-424; Ernest Best, SecondCorinthians Atlanta: Knox, 1987) 116-21 (anextreme example of this tendency); Sumney, IdentifyingPaul's Opponents,167-68; andStrecker, "Die Legitimitat des paulinischen Apostolates," 577. Bruce (I and 2 Corinthians,245-50) denied a connection between 2 Corinthians 12 and any vision recorded in Acts, butdid not downplay the significance of Paul's visions. On the position advanced by Goulder, seepp. 272-73 above.

65See Tabor, ThingsUnutterable, 2-34, for a penetrating expose of the "hidden agenda"underlying this approach, the aim of which is to produce a portrait of Paul that conforms torationalist Protestant presuppositions. A few of the commentators cited in the previous notehave argued that Paul's visions were important for him personally, but irrelevant to hisapostolic claim or Christian belief. This is simply absurd.66Ibid., 21; Segal, Paul the Convert,34-71. Baumgarten (Paulus und die Apokalyptik,143) has also emphasized the frequency of Paul's visionary experience but did not discuss theaspect of practical mysticism, nor did he think that Paul saw Christ on this occasion. See alsoRichard Reitzenstein, HellenisticMysteryReligions:TheirBasic IdeasandSignificancePTMS

7/30/2019 1510011

22/29


describing only one among several such experiences, which occulTedatsome indeterminate oint in his career,must be rejectedon two counts: nthe first place, this vision is evidentlythe basis of Paul'sclaim to apostolicauthority in defense of which he is compelled, against his will, to boastof it) and, second, he is at pains to give the event a precise historicallocation. A few scholars have identified the ascent to paradisewith theconversionon the Damascusroad,67 ut this suggestion s also unconvinc-ing. In none of the accountsof this event in Acts (9:1-9; 22:6-11; 26:12-18) do we find any indicationthat a heavenly ascent was involved: thenarrativemodel correspondsmore closely to the apocalypticmotif of therevelatorydescentof an angelic being. Nor is thereany indication hat Paulsaw a vision of Christ in human form upon the celestial throne on thisoccasion: all three versions in Acts speak of a blinding ight and a voicefrom heaven. Paul's own account of this event (Gal 1:15-16) does notindicate hat it was a heavenlyascent or that it involved a vision of Christupon the throne.68n this account,Paul uses the verb asoKak9X but notthe noun osxacyla. This point is not (pace Goulder)at all decisive, but ittends to supportthe impressiongiven by Acts that the content of thisexperience was primarilyauditory,not visual. Most important f all, noaccountof the Damascusroad experienceprovidesa point of contactwiththe imageryof the temple which was, as we have seen, at the heartof theparadise radition.A recordedvision of Paul remains which has attracted ittle attentionfrom recentcommentators, ut seems to satisfy all the criteriademanded ythe above analysis. This is the vision in the Jerusalem emple, reported nActs 22 at the conclusionof Paul's defense speech on the temple steps.6915; trans. John E. Steely; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978) 426-500, esp. 468-71.

67John Knox ("'Fourteen Years Later,"' 346-49; and idem, "The Pauline Chronology,"JBL 58 [1939] 15-29) originally held this view but later retracted it (Chapters in a Life ofPaul [New York/Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950] 78 n.3; see also the second, revisededition [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987] 34 n. 1). Riddle (Man of Conflict, 62-63, 208-11) accepted Knox's original position, which has also been supported by CharlesHenry Buck and Greer Taylor (Saint Paul: A Study of the Development of His Thought [NewYork: Scribner, 1969] 220-26). Buck and Taylor rightly recognized the importance of thevision for Paul's claim to apostolic authority but wrongly assumed that the basis of this claimwas the Damascus road event.

68Contra Seyoon Kim (The Origin of Paul's Gospel [WUNT 2/4; 2d ed.; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1984] 223-33) whose discussion, although excellent in many respects, rests on afalse assumption. See further n. 82 below.69Stanislas Giet ("Nouvelles remarques sur les voyages de Saint Paul a Jerusalem,"RevScRel31 [1957] 32942) suggested in passing (p. 340) that this passage may correspond to 2 Cor12:1-12 but, as far as I am aware, this suggestion has never been developed in detail. RobertJewett (A Chronology of Paul's Life [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979] 54-55) briefly consideredthe possibility, but mistakenly rejected it (see further below p. 287).

7/30/2019 1510011

23/29


According o Acts, this vision occurredduringhis first visit to Jerusalemafter his conversion.In Galatians,Paul states that this first visit occurredthree years after his conversion Gal 1:18)7andfourteenyears beforehissecond visit (Gal 2:1). The vision is describedas follows:

l7AfterI had returned o Jerusalemand while I was praying in thetemple, I came to be in a trance ^yvaOat pl V K6TaGt) l8aandto see him, saying to me: l8b''Hurry,nd get out of Jerusalem uickly,because they will not accept yourtestimonyaboutme." l9AndI said:"Lord, they themselves know that in all the synagogues I used toimprisonand beat those who believed in you, 20and that) while theblood of your witness Stephenwas being shed I myself stood byapproving ndguarding he garmentsof those who were killing him."2lThenhe said to me: "Go, for I will send you (ta1t06TXX 6) faraway to the Gentiles." 2Up o thispoint,they [thecrowd n the temple]listened to him, but then they shouted:"Remove his person from theearth, or it were not fitting for him to live (ov yap Ka0nKvavtov4ilv)!'' (Acts 22:17-22)

If, as I have argued, he ascentto paradisemeansentry nto the celestialHoly of Holies, this incident clearly corresponds o such an experience.Paul has beentransportedn his ecstatic trance hence his uncertainty s towhether his body accompaniedhim71) rom the earthly to the heavenlytemple and into the celestial Holy of Holies, where he sees Christas theenthronedkabod.As noted by Otto Betz,72 he account in Acts containsseveral echoes of Isaiah 6, which, as was discussedin part one of thisarticle, is a centrally mportant ext of the merkabahradition.Acts 22:17echoes Isa 6:1 ("I saw the LORD"),while Acts 22:21 ("I will send you")must be derivedfrom Isa 6:8 ("Whom hall I send?")and Isa 6:12 ("untilthe LORDhas senteveryone araway").Here, then, is the accountof Paul'sapostoliccommission o the Gentiles,in the context of a merkabah isionof Christas kabod n the celestialsanctuary, o which 2 Cor 12:1-12refers(as, probably,does 1 Cor 9:1).Acts 22:18b("theywill not acceptyour testimony") eems to reflectIsa6:9-13, verses that are fundamental o Paul'stheologicaltheory of "hard-hearted srael" compareActs 28:25-28). In the contextof this speech,theimplied reference o these verses of condemnation f Israel andpredicteddestruction f the Jewish stateamounts o a statementhat the divineglory

70Or t occurred three years after his return to Damascus, shortly after the conversion.7iSee Rowland, The Open Heaven, 383-84.72OttoBetz, "Die Vision des Paulus im Tempel von Jerusalem Apg. 22,17-21 als Beitragdes Damaskuserlebnisses," n Otto Bocher andKlaus Haacker,eds., VerborumVeritas,Festschriftfur Gustav Stahlin zum 70. Geburtstag (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1970) 113-23.

7/30/2019 1510011

24/29

C. RuA. MORRAY-JONES 287

(Christ)has abandoned srael in favor of the nations.Thus,whereasIsaiahwas sent to Israel,Paul is sent to the Gentiles.This radicalreinterpretationof the propheticaccountexplainsthe anger of his listeners(Acts 22:22),and it is intriguing o note that this is expressed n languagereminiscent fm. .Hag. .1C: "And whoever s not carefulabout the glory of his creator,it were fitting for him that he had not come into the world."RobertJewetthas objected hatPaul'spublicdescription f the vision inthetemple n Acts 22 contrasts o stronglywithhis reticence n 2 Corinthians12 thatthe two visions are unlikely to be the same.73This objection,how-ever, overlooks he fact that the speech on the temple steps,which providesthe context in which the public descriptionoccurs, is almost certainlyaLukancomposition.74everalcommentatorsave believedthis to be trueofthe vision itself, arguing hat it reflectsLuke'sconcern o legitimize gentileChristianity y emphasizing ts continuitywith Judaism.75 etz regardedtas a Lukancommentary n the Damascusroadevent andbelieved it to bea literarydevice intended o placePaul'sauthority n the same level as thatof the Twelve, to whom the risen Jesus had appeared n the Holy City.76On the other hand,HansConzelmannbelieves it to be an altemativever-sion of the conversion/call story, derived by Luke from a nonhistoricaltradition hatassociated he event with Jerusalem ather han Damascus.77ChristophBurchardhas rightlydisputed he suggestionof a tradition hatwas ignorantof the Damascusroadstory or denied its veracity,but he has

73Jewett,Chronology, 54-55.74ContraBruce,The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles (TyndaleNew TestamentLec-ture;London:Tyndale,1942) 22-25. See, above all, MartinDibelius, "TheSpeeches n Actsand AncientHistoriography,"n idem, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London:SCM,1956) 138-85, esp. 158-61. On the speeches in generalsee, for example,HenryJ. Cadbury,

The Making of Luke-Acts (London/NewYork: Macmillan,1958) 184-93; MartinDibelius,"TheActs of the Apostlesas a HistoricalSource," n idem,Studies, 102-8; F. F. Bruce,TheActs of the Apostles (3d ed.; GrandRapids: Eerdmans,1990) 34-40; EduardSchweizer,"Concerning he Speechesin Acts," in LeanderE. Keckand J. LouisMartyn, ds., Studiesin Luke-Acts (1966; reprintedPhiladelphia:Fortress,1980) 208-16; Fred Veltman,"TheDefense Speeches of Paul in Acts," in CharlesH. Talbert,ed., Perspectives on Luke-Acts(Perspectives n Religious Studies, Special Series 5; Danville, VA: Association of BaptistProfessors f Religion,1978)243-56. Alsorelevant o thisdiscussionareBenjamin .Hubbard,"Commissioning tories in Luke-Acts:A Study of theirAntecedents,Form andContent,"Semeia 8 (1977) 103-26; and idem, "TheRole of CommissioningAccounts in Acts," inTalbert,Perspectives, 187-98.75See,or example,Dibelius,"Speeches" 58-61; ErnstHaenchen, heActs of theApostles:A Commentary (Philadelphia:Westminster,1971) 628-31; Volker Stolle, Der Zeuge alsAngeklagter: Untersuchungen zum Paulus-Bild des Lukas (Stuttgart:Kohlhammer, 973)164-66, 210-12; RobertC.Tannehill,TheNarrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpre-tation, vol. 2: The Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis:Augsburg/Fortress, 990) 268-84.76Betz,"Die Vision des Paulus m Tempel."77HansConzelmann,Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia:Fortress,1987) 187-88.

7/30/2019 1510011

25/29


also maintained hat the story of the temple vision is derived from anonhistorical radition, he originsof which he believedto be beyond re-covery.78The evidenceconsideredabove,however,suggeststhat this pas-sage is an authenticunit of traditionand derives ultimately from Paulhimself,even thoughthe speechitself was composedby Lukeout of tra-ditionalmaterialandmay well neverhave occurred. f the correspondencebetweenActs 22:22 and m. Hag. 2.1 is more thancoincidental, hen thisverse must also be part of the authentic raditionderivedfrom Paul, andnot merely a literary device to conclude the speech (althoughLuke hasused it for this purpose).79t would suggest,then, thatthe unit may wellbe derivedfroman actualconfrontation etweenPaul and a Jewish,prob-ably Pharisaic,audienceat some point in his career.Thus,threestages inthe developmentof the traditionare to be distinguished: 1 the visionitself, in Jerusalem,hreeyearsafter heconversion;2) Paul'sownreport(s)of the experience, ncluding the outragedresponseof a Jewish audience;and (3) Luke's ncorporationf such a report,at first or secondhand, n the(probably ictitious)speechon the templesteps.The templevision of Acts 22 is thus almostcertainlybased,howeverindirectly,on an actualexperienceof Paul, to which2 Cor 12:1-12 refers.Given the manner n whichour information oncerning his vision is me-diatedwithin the narrativeof Acts, the location of the vision within theearthly empleshouldperhapsbe questioned.Thetemplesettingcould,likethatof Nehunyah'sranceascent in HekhalotRabbati,80 e symbolicratherthan historical. It may also be the case that Paul'sactual vision was apurelymystical event, consistingof an imaginaryascent to the celestialtemple, and thatthe physicallocation in the earthlytemple is a misinter-pretation n the partof Luke, who has takenhis sourcetoo literally.If thisinterpretation f the data were adopted,we could no longer assume thatPaul'svision actuallyoccurredwhile he was in Jerusalem, ndLuke'schro-nological ocationof the eventwouldthereforealso be called intoquestion.The location is confirmed,however,with regard to both geographyandchronology,by Paul'sown testimony. t corresponds reciselyto the pointat which the rapture o paradiseoccurs in the narrativesequence of 2Corinthians 1-12, in which Paul'saccountof his escape fromDamascus

78Christophurchard,Der dreizehnteZeuge:traditions-undkompositionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchungenuLukas'DarstellungderFruhzeitdes Paulus(Gottingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 970)161-69. Interestingly nough,Burchardwaspreparedo speculate n a foot-note (p. 165 n. 13), developinga suggestionof Menoud "L'echarde,"71), that t mayhavearisenout of speculationaboutPaul'svision in 2 Corinthians12. This theoryimposes anunnecessary trainupon the evidence. See furthern. 81 below.79SeeDibelius,"Speeches,"160.80Hekhalot abbati 13-23 (Schafer,Synopse,198-250). See part1, pp. 181-82.

7/30/2019 1510011

26/29


is followed immediatelyby his vision.81 t seems most probable, hen, thatPaul'svisionaryascent to the celestial sanctuary = paradise)and apostoliccommisionto the Gentiles did occur in Jerusalemon the occasion of hisfirst visit after his conversion.Althoughcertainty s of course impossible,Luke's ocation of the event in the actual temple is therefore ikely to begenuine.It has emerged from this investigationthat Paul's conversion on theDamascus oad and his apostoliccommission o the Gentiles n the celestialtemple (= paradise)were almost certainlytwo separateevents, the latteroccurring hree years after the former n Jerusalem,and probably n thetemple.82Though contrary o the prevailing assumption, his finding fits

8l2 Cor 11 32-12:1; compareActs 9:23-26. If Lukeused 2 Corinthians 0-13 as a source,he will almostcertainlyhave recognized hat2 Cor 12:1-12 referred o the templevision thathe recordedat Acts 22:17-22. It is, however, nconceivable hat this gentile authorwas sofamiliarwith the merkabah radition hat he was able to make up Acts 22:17-22, with itsdetailed allusions to that tradition,on the basis of 2 Cor 12:1-12, the languageof which isrelativelyveiled. The accountof the temple vision must thereforebe derivedfrom a Jewishsource. To argue that this source was not Paul himself (see n. 78 above) is to complicatemattersbeyond necessity of reason.82Though ot widely accepted, his position has been argued rom the internalevidenceof Acts by, for example, Rudolf Liechtenhan,Die urchristlicheMission: Voraussetzungen,MotiveundMethoden AThANT ; Zurich:Zwingli-Verlag,1946) 77-80; AntonFridrichsen,"TheApostle andhis Message," UUA 3; Uppsala:Lundequistaka, 947) 3-23; Benz, "Visio-nar,"91; Paul Gaechter,Petrusundseine Zeit (Innsbruck: yrolia-Verlag, 958) 408-15; W.D. Davies, "TheApostolic Age andthe Life of Paul," n PCB, 874 (764a);Beda Rigaux,TheLettersof St. Paul (Chicago:FranciscanHerald,1968) 61-62; EdwardP. Blair, "Paul'sCallto the Gentile Mission,"BR 10 (1965) 19-33.Kim's attempt o refute these arguments Origin, 58-65) is both conjectural nd tenden-tious. His statement hat the temple vision "does not. . . seem to have been of decisiveimportance or Paul, for he nevermentions t in his letters" p. 65) is, in the light of the aboveanalysis, completelywrong. The assumption hat the conversionand the commission o theGentiles were a single event is absolutelycentralto Kim'sthesis, which is vitiated by thisfinding (see n. 68 above). Kim lists several passages of Paul'swritingsthat have often beeninterpreted s references o the conversion Origin, 3-31), but manyof these may in fact bereferences o the commission n the temple (= paradise).Newman Glory-Christology, 64-247) follows Kim'serroneousassumption.JamesD. G. Dunn(Jesus and the Spirit:A Studyof the Religious and CharismaticExpe-rience of Jesus as Reflected n the New Testament London:SCM, 1975] 97-114) offers auseful discussionof Paul'sclaim to apostolic authoritybut also assumes hat the conversionandcommissionwere a single event. Dunnalso overlooksa crucialdifferencebetweenPaul'svision of the risen Christand the "pre-ascension" esurrection ppearances o the disciple-apostles:Paul'svisions are of the heavenly,glorifiedChrist-kabod. he Damascus oadeventimplies as argued bove)a revelatory escentof the Christ-kabodr, alternatively, n "openingof the heavens" as in Ezekiel 1), hence the supernatural linding ight which is markedlyabsent n the pre-ascensionappearances.On the other hand, the commission n paradise =the templevision) was associatedwith a vision of the Christ-kabodnthronedn the celestialsanctuaryat the climax of a mystical ascent.

7/30/2019 1510011

27/29


with what we know of Paul'scareer: here s no evidence that he preachedto the Gentiles,or claimedapostolicauthority, uring he three nterveningyears. Moreover, t seems inherentlyprobable hat it was the experienceofJewish opposition to the gospel that caused him to interpret saiah 6 insuch radical ermsand that this vision was, at least in part,a productof hisintense frustration.There is nothing n any accountof the Damascusroadevent to suggest it was the cause of this radicaldeparturerom his Jewishbelief that cannotbe explainedas the reflectionof hindsighton the divinepurposebehind he initial revelation.83 om 15:15-20 confirms his pictureof events:

l5ButI have written o you in part boldly, to remindyou, on accountof the grace given to me by God l6to be a servantof ChristJesus tothe Gentiles, administering he gospel of God as a priestly service(ipoUpy0DVTa T0 tay7l0V T0D 00D), that the offering of theGentiles may be acceptable, anctifiedby the Holy Spirit. 17InChristJesus, then, I have my boast in the things pertaining o God, l8for Iwill not presumeto speak of anythingexcept that which Christ hasaccomplished hroughme for the obedienceof the Gentiles, by wordand deed, 19throughhe powerof signs and wonders, hrough he powerof the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem nd around o IllyricumI have fully proclaimed he gospel of Christ.20Thus, aspire o preachthe gospel, not where Christhas alreadybeen named,so that I do notbuild on another's oundation.

Here, Paul characteristicallymphasizes he independence f his apostolatefrom any human authority Rom 15:20) but places the beginning of thegentile mission in Jerusalem(Rom 15 19). Moreover, he describes hisapostolate o the Gentilesas the exerciseof a priestlyministry Rom 15:16).The references o boasting Rom 15:17) and works of power (Rom 15:18-19) are reminiscentof 2 Corinthians 2.Obviously,this finding has significant mplications or the vexed ques-tion of the Pauline chronology.Broadly speaking, it tends to supporta

83Nowheren Acts 9 is it stated hat Paul received his commission o the Gentileson theoccasion of his conversion.We are told only that the knowledgeof God's uturepurpose orPaul was vouchsafed o Ananias Acts 9:15). Indeed,Acts 9:16 mightbe taken o imply thatAnaniaswas forbidden o reveal this purpose o Paul ("I [Christ]myself will show him").Acts 26:12-23 seems to be a compressed ersion of Acts 22:6-21, in which the contentsofboth the Ananiasepisode and the templevision are assimilated o the Damascus oadevent.Since both speeches (and perhaps he Ananiasepisode itself) are Lukancompositions, hishas no bearingon the authenticity f Acts 22:17-22 as a traditionial nit derivingultimatelyfrom Paul. At Gal 1:16, Paul does not state that he became awareof his commission o theGentileson the occasionof his conversion,merely hathe now knowsthis to have been God'spurposewhen he first revealedhis Son to him.

7/30/2019 1510011

28/29


reconstructionasedon the Epistles,rather hanActs, as proposedby JohnKnox, Donald Wayne Riddle, John Coolidge Hurd,CharlesHenry Buckand GreerTaylor, RobertJewett, and Gerd Ludemann.84ince Gal 2:1specifiesa fourteen-yearntervalbetweenthe first visit to Jerusalemwhenthe paradise/temple ision occurred)and the second (the "Jerusalemon-ference"),2 Corinthians 0-13 musthave been writtenat aboutthis time.As we observedabove,both lettersseem to have been written n the heatof the crisis over Paul'sapostolicauthorityandhence concern he validityof the Gentile mission. Since 2 Corinthians10-13 does not refer to theJerusalemmeeting, t may have beenwrittenshortlybeforethis event,andGalatiansshortlyafterward.This complex issue, however,cannotbe dis-cussedin detailhere. It is sufficientto have shownthat the ecstaticascentto paradise, he templevision, andthe apostoliccommission o the Gentileswere one andthe same revolutionaryvent.The impactof merkabahmys-

84SeeKnox, "'FourteenYearsLater,"' sp. 341; idem, "ThePaulineChronology," sp.23-26; idem, Chapters n a Life of Paul (reviseded.; 1987; see n. 67 above) esp. 3-52;Riddle,Manof Conflict,esp. 13-20 and 185-223; BuckandTaylor,SaintPaul, esp. 3-19;Jewett,Chronology,esp. 7-24; JohnCoolidge Hurd,Jr., "Chronology,Pauline,"IDBSup(1962) 166-67; idem,TheOriginof 1 Corinthians New York:Seabury,1965) 3-42; idem,"PaulineChronologyand PaulineTheology," n W. R. Farmer,C. F. D. Moule and R. R.Niebuhr,eds., ChristianHistoryand Interpretation: tudiesPresented o JohnKnox(Lon-don/New York:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1967) 22548; and idem, "TheSequenceofPaul'sLetters,"CJT 14 (1968) 188-200; GerdLudemann, aul, Apostle to the Gentiles:Studies n Chronology Philadelphia: ortress,1984). See now JohnKnox,"On he PaulineChronology:Buck-Taylor-Hurd evisited," n RobertT. Fortnaand Beverly R. Gaventa,eds., TheConversationContinues:Studiesin Paul andJohn in Honorof J. LouisMartyn(Nashville:Abingdon,1990) 258-74. Since these scholarshavetendedto discountActs asa sourceof reliabledata,it is perhapshardlysurprisinghatnoneof themhas identified heascentto paradisewiththe templevision,butthe identifications consistentwith,orrequiresonly smalladjustmentso, thereconstructionshattheyhaveproposed. t allows theexpres-sion bla beKaecscyapxv tv in Gal 2:1 to be takenas consecutivewith (rather haninclusiveof) pexa t xpia in Gal 1:18,as seemsmostnatural.Thus,Gal 1:15-17 refersto theconversion;Gal 1:18statesthatPaulwent upto Jerusalemhreeyearsafterthisevent;and Gal2:1placesthesecondvisit to Jerusalemthe"Jerusalemonference")ourteenyearslater.It is probable hatGal2:11-14 is not partof this chronological equence,butreferstoan earlierevent (see Ludemann, aul, 20-21). It shouldbe notedthat Paul'sprotestation tGal 1:21 implies that a differentaccountof these events was being promulgatedby hisopponents,and this couldbe the basis of the muddledchronologyof Acts.Thereconstruction roposedby JamesD. G. Dunn ("TheIncidentat Antioch[Gal2:11-18],"JSNT 18 [1983] 3-57, reprinted n idem,Jesus, Paul and the Law [London:SPCK,1990] 129-81) rests on the assumption hat Gal 2:11-14 continuesthe chronologicalse-quenceof Gal 1:13-2:10. Giet ("Nouvellesremarques,"35-40) has argued hatGal 1:18,UEtcelxaExa t xpla, meansthreeyearsafterPaul'sstay in Damascus, he lengthofwhichis not specified,so thatmorethanthreeyearselapsedbetween heconversionandthefirst visit to Jerusalem,butthis readingof the text seems very strained.

7/30/2019 1510011

29/29


ticism upon humanhistoryhas thereforebeen considerable, or it was atthe very heart of Paul's experience and apostolic claim. Moreover,hismerkabah ision of the enthroned nd glorifiedMessiahprovided he inspi-ration for his "gospel to the nations."

1510011

Documents