THE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE OF ST. PAUL

BENJAMIN WISNER BACON

§ 1. The Previous Question

Preliminary to the question of the psychologist: What were the experiences of the author considered? lies the question of the critic: What are our sources of information? Even in the case of contemporaries it makes a difference whether the record which serves as our basis of judgment be derived at first or second hand; and if we are so fortunate as to possess the mystic's own account of his experience it still is a matter of greatest moment whether the record was prepared for the purpose to which the scientific investigator puts it. It may be, conceivably, a dispassionate report of calm self-scrutiny, or again it may be an indignant polemic, a protest again slander, a rhapsody of ecstatic feeling. If the author be writing for scientific purposes we may treat his utterances accordingly. We must use a different kind of interpretation if he writes as a religious enthusiast, passionately conscious of the inadequacy of language, and eagerly availing himself of more or less conventionalized forms and symbols of devout imagination.

When in addition the attempt is made to overleap the gap of well-nigh two millenniums in time, and the culture and civilization of a non-Aryan race, the need of historical criticism, and of historical interpretation, becomes ten-fold more apparent, as a preliminary to any judgment worth having concerning the mystical "experiences" of an author.

81

1

If anything were lacking to prove the necessity of such preliminary enquiry it would be supplied by a recent example of uncritical procedure, in which what is called "psychological criticism" is applied to the character and teaching of Jesus in much the same way that one might apply it to that of Moses from the Pentateuch, David from the Psalms, or Isaiah from the composite literature covering several centuries that has attached itself to the prophet's

name.

Not that a real and genuine "psychological criticism might not be serviceable if ultimately applied even to these dim, majestic figures of the past. Not that it is inapplicable even in the case of Jesus, difficult as it is for the historical and literary critic to determine the precise nature of his teaching and outline of his career. But the preliminary studies are not wanting. We have a whole literature devoted to the "Messianic Consciousness of Jesus." And in this valuable literature the specific problem of the "Eschatology" of Jesus, or his conception of his relation to the Coming Age of world-renewal, takes the fore-front of the discussion. Such "psychological criticism" is both inevitable, and (if conducted competently, in a spirit of reverence and devotion to the truth) is even ardently to be desired. For what do we mean by "knowing" and "appreciating " the spirit of Jesus, if not bringing it into nearest practicable relation to the spirit of men of his own times, such as John the Baptist and Paul, of the great leaders of Israel's religious past, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, and so (by this same road of comparison) into relation with men of our own times and ultimately with our own consciousness. Such "psychological criticism" we admit to be both inevitable and necessary. But those who have made real contributions in this field, the Schenkels, Baldenspergers, Wredes, 1 G. Stanley Hall, Jesus Christ in the Light of Psychology, vols. I and II, New York, 1917.

Schweitzers, Sandays, Winstanleys and others, did not begin to build at the top of the chimney. They sought first of all as competent critics and philologians to know the nature and relative value of the documents on which they relied for their data, and the meaning of the language employed, and thus laid a foundation.

In the case of St. Paul there is more immediate reason for the application of a modest and methodical "psychological criticism" than in the case of his great Master. For whereas the very fact of any mystical experience of Jesus is widely open to question, Paul explicitly and emphatically proclaims it in his own case. At the same time there is also greater hope of useful results. For psychological analysis is obviously more practicable where the basis of study is a body of admittedly authentic writings by the character to be studied, rather than a body of anonymous, undated narratives, extremely diverse in character and notoriously difficult to harmonize, as to which we can be sure of almost nothing beyond the fact that not one word was written by the subject himself, and that their very language is only his in translation.

As it is, the psychologist, expert or inexpert, has not waited to ask whether in the case of Paul his enquiry was practicable and promising or not. The very necessity of the case demands it. Every apologist for the Christian faith, since the Apostle himself answered to Festus for his own rationality, finds it necessary to treat of Paul's mystical experiences. We have no other direct and well authenticated attestation of the central facts of our religion, no other first-hand witness to the resurrection faith. No wonder then that we have scores, if not hundreds, of attempts, more or less satisfactory according as they are based on a wider or narrower foundation of kindred observed phenomena, to classify, interpret, explain, make intelligible, that religious experience of Paul which centers upon his conversion. Historically the

rock foundation of the Church was the new birth of Peter's faith, when the gates of Sheol were found to have yielded to the Prince of life. But Peter has left us no record of his experience. For Christian apologetic the starting-point must be that vision of the glorified Jesus which gave to Paul his apostleship and his gospel in one.

The reason for this central importance of the mystical experience of Paul is not far to seek; but it is so commonly forgotten or ignored that I may venture to remind you of the facts. Not only are the Pauline Epistles by much the oldest New Testament writings, antedating by half a generation the most ancient of extant Gospels, they are actually the only admittedly apostolic record that we possess. Only one of the writings attributed by church tradition to the Apostle John contains the name of the reputed author, and that is Revelation, the most violently disputed of all from the very beginning. Matthew is admittedly not apostolic in its present form. Of the many writings purporting to be the work of Peter, only one, the so-called First Epistle, has claims to authenticity which are generally deemed worthy of serious consideration; and what First Peter contains that is not borrowed from Paul is a quantity so minute as to be almost imperceptible. Outside Paul, then, there are no writings of admitted apostolicity, and Paul himself was not an Apostle in that sense of the word which most appeals to the secular historian. But he is our only first-hand witness for the ultimate facts of gospel story.

I do not by any means wish to be understood as implying that without Paul we should know nothing about the character, teaching and career of Jesus, and of the origins of the Church. Quite the contrary. By far the larger part of our knowledge comes from sources independent of Paul. But all this independent knowledge would lose its most indispensable support and guarantee, were it not for the datable, signed, and superbly authenticated Pauline Epistles. When,

therefore, it becomes a question of establishing so vital a fact of our religion as the appearances of the risen Christ to his disciples, it would be hopeless to try to establish anything without the testimony of First Corinthians, the best authenticated of all the writings of the New Testament, a writing (I think it safe to say) as well authenticated as any of classical antiquity.

As we know, Paul correlates his own experience with that of all the other witnesses of the resurrection in I Cor. 15:1-11, a survey of the testimony quite adequate for the purpose, but completely different from the story told in any one of the Gospels, and having scarcely a point of contact with theirs. As between Paul's record and that of Synoptic story no historian could hesitate for a moment. We are all familiar with the often quoted declaration that the testimony of the Gospels to the data of the resurrection story would suffice to establish the fact in any court of law. The statement is made by one among other writers who counts the training of a lawyer among his many qualifications. And yet even a child should perceive its harmful exaggeration. It might perhaps be true if the Gospels were the signed and sealed deposition of competent first-hand witnesses. As it is, they are unsigned, undated reports gathered forty or more years after the event, dependent on unknown sources at several, perhaps many, removes from the eye-witWhat would such documents be worth without the corroborative evidence of at least one eye-witness? The authenticated record of Paul is not only by far the oldest testimony, not only is he the only witness who comes forward with the definite statement "I saw "; it is his statement which supports and authenticates all the rest. It is his statement, therefore, by reference to which the concurrent tradition must also be weighed, valued and understood.

nesses.

Because there can be neither rational defense of the fundamental truths of Christianity, nor historically adequate