Post by Tamrin on Jun 21, 2009 14:27:10 GMT 10
In the Middle East, a short time after the crucifixion of Jesus the Nazarene, a young man went on a journey. This was not a holiday, not a business trip, but had a far more sinister purpose. All the evil of the intolerant fanatic bent on wiping out those who held a point of view different from his own lay in the soul of that ancient traveller as he braved the desert sands. About his person were what he doubtless considered his most valuable possessions at the time, the items which he would have guarded with all his fanatical zeal had he fallen among the thieves who frequented the wild parts of the region. These valuable items were letters from the Jewish Chief priest authorising the bearer to arrest any whom he found in Damascus to be followers of Jesus and to bring them bound to Jerusalem.
The young man in question was Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee. He had already been an active participant in the martyrdom of Stephen, giving his vote in favour of the execution and looking after the cloaks of those who actually carried out the stoning. His blood was on fire to catch and put to death as many as possible of the people he hated more than anyone else in the world - the Christians.
Such is the Biblical account of the early appearances on the scene of the young Saul. He is first identified in the Acts of the Apostles simply as "a young man", a clear indication that at the time he was an unknown. His status was to change dramatically in the coming years as he was transformed into a major historical figure taking the new name of Paul - and that transformation began outside the gate of Damascus on his hateful journey of oppression, when Saul experienced a sudden and dramatic conversion.
Early on I became quite doubtful about the authenticity of the venue given as the site of Saul's conversion. Syria was a foreign country to the Jews, so how could the writ of a Jewish religious leader, however eminent, have any validity there? An equivalent situation in our own setting might be for a British churchman to issue warrants for the arrest of members of other faiths in, say, Paris. Clearly the French authorities would not permit any such interference in their domestic affairs. In like manner the Syrians would never, I reasoned, permit a man from another nation to drag their people away in chains. Within the domain of Israel, however, the situation was vastly different. Here the word of the High Priest was law, Holy law, and Rome, seeing the issue as an internal religious one, would have maintained its policy of letting the Jews sort out their own religious affairs. So it appeared to me that Saul's letters were addressed to the authorities in a Damascus which was in Israel - but where could that be? I could find no evidence at all in the beginning that there had ever been a Damascus in Israel, but the latest work on the Dead Sea Scrolls has raised some evidence that Qumran may have been called Damascus in the early Christian era. Perhaps, then, Saul's journey was to Qumran. However, the actual site of his conversion is of little importance. What matters is that it occured, and its historical significance was enormous.
The Saul who walked away from his Damascus Gate experience is sometimes said to have been a totally changed character. He was not. His personality remained the same as it had been, rigid, uncompromising, intolerant. Saul had merely changed the objects of his hatred. Becoming a Christian of a particular kind he was frighteningly intolerant of other branches of the young faith - for, as we shall see, there was at least one other mainstream Christian body which grew up alongside, and in opposition to, Paul's idea of the faith.
This other form of Christianity was the Jerusalem Church, presided over by the surviving Apostles of Jesus. After his conversion Saul, as Paul, claimed to be an Apostle, but in fact he was not. His was a self appointment and had no validity, in spite of the spirited defence of his title made in the opening verses of the ninth chapter of the first letter to the Corinthian Church, a response which was clearly instigated by the fact that his credentials on this point had been challenged by some at Corinth.
The young man in question was Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee. He had already been an active participant in the martyrdom of Stephen, giving his vote in favour of the execution and looking after the cloaks of those who actually carried out the stoning. His blood was on fire to catch and put to death as many as possible of the people he hated more than anyone else in the world - the Christians.
Such is the Biblical account of the early appearances on the scene of the young Saul. He is first identified in the Acts of the Apostles simply as "a young man", a clear indication that at the time he was an unknown. His status was to change dramatically in the coming years as he was transformed into a major historical figure taking the new name of Paul - and that transformation began outside the gate of Damascus on his hateful journey of oppression, when Saul experienced a sudden and dramatic conversion.
Early on I became quite doubtful about the authenticity of the venue given as the site of Saul's conversion. Syria was a foreign country to the Jews, so how could the writ of a Jewish religious leader, however eminent, have any validity there? An equivalent situation in our own setting might be for a British churchman to issue warrants for the arrest of members of other faiths in, say, Paris. Clearly the French authorities would not permit any such interference in their domestic affairs. In like manner the Syrians would never, I reasoned, permit a man from another nation to drag their people away in chains. Within the domain of Israel, however, the situation was vastly different. Here the word of the High Priest was law, Holy law, and Rome, seeing the issue as an internal religious one, would have maintained its policy of letting the Jews sort out their own religious affairs. So it appeared to me that Saul's letters were addressed to the authorities in a Damascus which was in Israel - but where could that be? I could find no evidence at all in the beginning that there had ever been a Damascus in Israel, but the latest work on the Dead Sea Scrolls has raised some evidence that Qumran may have been called Damascus in the early Christian era. Perhaps, then, Saul's journey was to Qumran. However, the actual site of his conversion is of little importance. What matters is that it occured, and its historical significance was enormous.
The Saul who walked away from his Damascus Gate experience is sometimes said to have been a totally changed character. He was not. His personality remained the same as it had been, rigid, uncompromising, intolerant. Saul had merely changed the objects of his hatred. Becoming a Christian of a particular kind he was frighteningly intolerant of other branches of the young faith - for, as we shall see, there was at least one other mainstream Christian body which grew up alongside, and in opposition to, Paul's idea of the faith.
This other form of Christianity was the Jerusalem Church, presided over by the surviving Apostles of Jesus. After his conversion Saul, as Paul, claimed to be an Apostle, but in fact he was not. His was a self appointment and had no validity, in spite of the spirited defence of his title made in the opening verses of the ninth chapter of the first letter to the Corinthian Church, a response which was clearly instigated by the fact that his credentials on this point had been challenged by some at Corinth.
