For the sake of clearness we have tried to dis- tinguish the particular causes that contributed to make the theology of St. Paul what it is. But because we have singled out these causes, we of course do not suppose that only one was at work at a time. Very often two or more were at work together, subtly blended and passing into each other. The abstract distinctions that the mind creates always have about them something artificial ; and yet history becomes clearer when the process of analysis precedes that of synthesis.
lY. St. Paul's knowledge of Christ. — We now come to the direct question, What means had St. Paul of knowing about Jesus, and what did he know ? We will take the latter half of this question first, as being the less speculative, and as helping us to answer the first.
1. Extent of his knowledge. — We are speaking now of the historical Jesus, and not of the glorified Christ. And here we are met at the outset by exaggerated statements, that St. Paul had little or no interest in the historical Jesus, and knew little or nothing about Him. It is coming to be seen that these statements are exaggerated, and \ in recent years allowance is being made for know- ledge on a considerably larger scale than used to be the case (see, for instance, the opinions
mentioned by Knowling, The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, pp. 201-204, 503-518). There are, however, certain points that we are obliged to leave undecided.
(i. ) The most important of these has reference to the two well-known passages in which St. Paul appears to show detailed knowledge — 1 Co 1123-25 (the institution of the Lord's Supper) and 15^"^ (the appearances after the Resurrection). Are these passages to be treated as just samples of St. Paul's ordinary knowledge — so that he might, if he had pleased, have described other incidents in the Lord's life with equal fulness and pre- cision ? Or are we to take these two specimens of detailed information as something altogether exceptional and abnormal ? For ourselves, we believe that the first alternative is far nearer the truth than the second. The very precision with which the Apostle writes looks as if he Avere drawing from a well furnished store. On the other hand, the paucity of the references proves hardly anything. There is frequently something that will seem to be capricious in our experience of such matters — the proportion in which a writer quotes what he might have quoted. We have to remember that, if this one Epistle had chanced not to survive, we should have had no evidence that St. Paul possessed detailed knowledge of this kind at all. This, tlien, is our own belief ; but at the same time, if it is questioned, we cannot profess to make it good to demonstration.
(ii. ) We note further that there are express appeals to ' words of the Lord ' in 1 Co 7^" and 9'^. Besides these, there are coincidences of expression so striking as almost to amount to quotation in R0I2", 1 Co 412- "65 122-3.
(iii. ) Again, St. Paul shows a marked insight into the character of Jesus as it is described in the Gospels. He singles out exactly those traits (' the meekness and gentleness of Christ,' 2 Co 10^) which the Jesus of the Gospels took as character- istic of Himself ('Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek and lowly in heart, ' Mt IP^). Other allusions point in the same direction {e.g. Ph 2^"^).
(iv. ) Really this insight into the character of Christ is part of a phenomenon that strikes us on a larger scale. The hortatory passages of St. Paul's Epistles show that he understood to a nicety the new religious ideal introduced by Christ. The ideal was really a new one. The nearest approach to it was that of ' the poor ' in the Psalter, 'the poor in spirit' of the Gospel (Mt 5^). But even these were not free from vindictiveness ; they were not prepared to say, ' Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you,' or ' If thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him to drink' (Mt 5«, Ro 122<>). It is not merely a question of verbal parallelism ; the whole con- ception is really the same. It could not be more perfectly delineated than it is in 1 Co 13. When it is contended (as it is, e.g., by Wrede, Paulas, p. 91) that St. Paul is thinking mainly of those who are brethren in the faith, that is really not the case ; liis exhortations are in no way confined to the relations of the brethren to one another.
2. Sources of this knowledge. — That there is a real connexion, and a close connexion, between the ideal laid down by Christ and that inculcated by St. Paul cannot be denied ; it is really one and the same. How did St. Paul acquire the know- ledge of it ? He must have done so in no merely transient manner ; he must have had the ideal so completely set before liim that it sank deep into his soul.
(i. ) In spite of the independence which he claims for himself, we know that St. Paul had long and familiar intercourse with disciples, like Barnabas