Not Paul, But Jesus

Uncertainties crowd upon uncertainties. At the time of Paul's conversion, – had Damascus already this same king, named Aretas, with a governor under him? If so, how happens it, that, of this state of the government, no intimation is perceptible, in the account given of that conversion in the Acts? Was it – that, at that time, there existed not any such monarchical personage? but that, before the adventure of the basket, some revolution had placed him there?

According to Paul's account, – the state of things, produced in Damascus by his exertions, was somewhat curious. On the face of this account, in ordinary there was no garrison in Damascus: it was only by special order from the monarch, and for no other purpose than the bringing to justice – or what was called justice – the person of the self-constituted Apostle, – that a garrison was put into the town, with a governor for the command of it.

What a foundation all this for credence! and, with it, for a system of religious doctrine to build itself upon! – religious doctrine – with the difference between eternal happiness and eternal misery depending upon it!

SECTION 5.

CAUSE OF THE DISCORDANCE BETWEEN THE TWO ACCOUNTS

Between these two accounts, such being the discordance – where shall we find the cause of it? Answer: in the different views, in which, at the time of writing, the two accounts were penned: in the different objects, to the accomplishment of which, at the time of penning their respective accounts, the endeavours of the two writers were directed.

The author of the Acts – what, then, was his object? To obtain for his patron – his chief hero – alive or dead – a recognition, as universal as possible, in his assumed character of an Apostle. The more complete the recognition, bestowed upon him by those most competent of all judges, – the more extensive the recognition he might look for, at the hands of all other their fellow-believers.

Sufficient was this – sufficient for the general purposes of the party – in the eyes of a person other than Paul, even though that other person was a protegé, a retainer, a satellite.

Sufficient this was not, however, to the arrogance of the head of the party – Paul himself: at least, at the time of his writing this his letter to his Galatian converts.

Think you, says he, that any relation, I have ever borne to any of those who were Apostles before me, had, on my part, anything in it of dependence? Think you, that I ever stood in need of anything at their hands? Think you, that I had ever any more need of them, than they of me? Not I, indeed. The Gospel, which I have always preached – neither from them did I receive it, nor from them, in preaching it, did I ever seek or receive any assistance. Gal. i. 11, 12. Think you, that I stood in any need, or ever supposed myself to stand in any need, of any acceptance or acknowledgement at their hands? Not I, indeed. When my revelation had been received by me, did I present myself to them, for any such purpose as that of remuneration and acceptance? Not I, indeed. I went not to them: I went not so much as to Jerusalem, where they then were: I conferred not with flesh and blood: – off I went to Arabia; and when my business in Arabia was at an end, even then, did I repair to Jerusalem? Not I, indeed. I returned again to Damascus. True it is, to Jerusalem I did go at last. – But when? – Not till three years afterwards. Well – and, when I was at Jerusalem, how many, and which of them, think you that I saw? Think you, that I put myself to any such trouble, as that of seeing them all together? the whole herd of them? No. Peter was naturally a chief among them: with him I had accordingly some business to settle: – him, accordingly, I saw, as also James, whom, as being a brother, or other near kinsman, of Jesus, I had a curiosity to see.

Paul himself wrote at one time; this his disciple at another: each of them pursued the purpose of the time. Not on this occasion, at any rate, – perhaps not on any other, was there anything, that either wrote, concerted between them.27 Of this want of concert, what has just been seen is one of the consequences.

Reserved as we have seen him, in regard to time and other circumstances, – one circumstance more there is, for which our curiosity is to no small amount, debtor, to the author of the Acts. This is – information, of the means – of the channel, through which Paul obtained the introduction, which, without mention made of the object, we have seen him acknowledging that, so far as concerned Peter, he was desirous of: and that to such a degree, as to undertake a journey from Damascus to Jerusalem, some 120 or 130 miles, for the purpose.

Repugnancy, so natural, and naturally so vehement – even at the end of three years, or the still greater number of years – by what means could he remove it, or so much as flatter himself with a prospect of being able to remove it? To this question, it is to the author of the Acts that we are indebted for an answer: and that answer a satisfactory one: – it was by the assistance of Barnabas, that the object, so far as it was accomplished, was accomplished.

To the religion of Jesus, after as well as before this, – to the Apostles in particular before this, – Barnabas was a supporter of no small importance.

At the time when the financial arrangements were for the second time settled;28– when, from the substance of the opulent among the faithful, enough was collected for the support of all the indigent; – among those, by whom, on this second occasion, lands and houses, were for this purpose sold, particular persons are, on this second occasion, for the first time mentioned. The first place is occupied by this Barnabas: and not till after him come Ananias and Sapphira – the unfortunate pair, of whose fate mention will have to be made in another place.

Joses was, it seems, the original name – the proper name of this beneficent protector: Barnabas, the Son of consolation, Acts 4:36, was no more than a title of honour, – a token of gratitude. A title of honour? and by whom conferred? Even by the Apostles. By Barnabas, therefore, whatsoever thereafter comes to be reported as done, – it is by the Son of consolation that we are to understand it to have been, and to be, done.

As to the arguments, by which this son of consolation succeeded, – in prevailing, upon two, and, if we are to believe Paul, no more than two, of these so lately persecuted or threatened servants of Jesus, – to be, for a few days, upon speaking terms, with him, who so lately had been their deadly, as well as open enemy, – it is from imagination, with judgment for her guide, that they must, if at all, be deduced from the surrounding circumstances of the case.

As to these arguments, however, – whatever were the rest of them, of two of them a hint is given by the author of the Acts: these are, – the story of the conversion, – and the boldness of the preaching, which at Damascus was among the first-fruits of it. Those which, under the guidance of judgment, imagination would not find much difficulty in adding, are, – the evil – that might result from his enmity, in case the advances then made by him were rejected, – and the useful service, which, by the blessing of God, might be hoped for at his hands, if admitted in the character of an ally and cooperator: at any rate, so long as the whole field of his exertions, and in particular the geographical part of it, continued different from theirs.

With Peter, on whatever account, it was Paul's own desire to hold a conference: – so we have seen him declaring to the Galatians. To this Peter, whom he was desirous of seeing, and whom at length he succeeded in seeing, – to this Peter did he then himself tell the story of his vision, of his conversion, and the mode of it? If at any time he did, – at any rate, if the author of the Acts is to be believed, – it was not till Barnabas, the son of consolation, had told it for him. Had it been by himself that his story had been to be told in the first instance, – he would thereby have stood exposed to cross-examination: and, among those things, which Barnabas might in his situation say for him, – were many things, which, if at all, he could not, with anything like an equal prospect of good effect, have said for himself. To any asseveration of his own, – in any promises of future amity, it was not in the nature of the case, that from his own mouth they should give credence. But, when by Barnabas, of whose zeal in their cause they had received such substantial proofs – when from this son of consolation they received assurance, that Paul had actually engaged himself in that line of service, which he professed himself desirous to embrace; – that he had engaged so far, that no prospect of safe retreat could reasonably be in his view; – then it was, that, without imprudence, they might, venture to hold at least a conference with him, and hear and see what he had to say for himself.

As to the account, given on this occasion by Barnabas, of the famous vision, – had it been but preserved, it would probably have been no less curious than those which we have been already seeing. Though we cannot be precisely assured in what way, – we may be pretty well assured, that, in some way or other, additions would have been to be seen made in it, to the list of variations.

But, the great advantage, – producible, and probably produced, by the opening of the matter, as performed by Barnabas, – was this: in company with those arguments, by which the sincerity of Paul was to be demonstrated, – would naturally come those, by which intimation would be given, of the advantage there might be, in forbearing to apply too strict a scrutiny, to this important statement. The interests, which, in the character of motives, pleaded for the acceptance, of the advance made towards reconciliation and mutually advantageous cooperation, – would, in this manner, prepare the way, for receiving, without any troublesome counter-interrogation, the important narrative: or, perhaps, for considering the matter, as already sufficiently explained, by the son of consolation, – in such sort that, to the new Apostle, the trouble of repeating a narrative, which he must already have so frequently found himself under the necessity of repeating, might be spared.

The greater was the importance, of the service thus rendered to Paul by the son of consolation, – the more studiously, in giving the account, as above, of the intercourse with the Apostles at Jerusalem, – the more studiously, would he avoid all mention of it.29

SECTION 6.

LENGTH OF THIS VISIT – PAUL'S EMPLOYMENT DURING IT

Fifteen days, if Paul is to be believed – fifteen days, and no more, – was the length of time, during which his intercourse with Peter continued: Gal. i. 18, that same length of time, and no greater, it may without much rashness be inferred, was his stay at Jerusalem.

These fifteen days, – or whatever, if anything longer, was the duration of his stay in that seat of their common religion, – in what occupations were they employed? It is in the Acts, if anywhere, that this question will receive its answer. It was in "disputing against the Grecians." Acts 9:29.

That such should have been his occupation, is in his situation altogether natural.

Of a sort of partition treaty, as having, at one time, been entered into between himself and Peter, – Paul, in his so-often mentioned letters to the Galatians, informs us in express terms. As to the time, which, on that occasion, he has in view, – it was, according to appearance, not the time of this his first visit, but of the third. At that third visit, the treaty was, at any rate, either entered into for the first time, or confirmed: receiving, at the same time, what was on both sides agreed upon, as an amendment requisite to add to it, in respect of clearness, correctness, or completeness.

But, at this visit, it seems altogether natural, that, with more or less of these same qualities, a treaty of this sort took place. By the sort of relation, produced between them, by the state of interests, – the existence of an agreement of this sort seems sufficiently probabilized: and, from the few words, in which, by the author of the Acts, mention is made of the Grecians, and of Paul's disputes with them, – the inference receives the confirmation afforded by direct evidence.

With the Grecians then it was, that these disputations of Paul were held. Why with the Grecians, and no other? The reason is no mystery. Greek was the language of Paul: Greek, for anything that appears, was not the language of Peter, or of any other of the Apostles. Applying himself to the Grecians, and to them alone, – Paul might, to any amount, have given additional extent to his own dominion, without subtracting anything from theirs.

Not productive, it should seem, of much fruit, – was this portion, of the new Apostle's labours. No sooner are we informed, of the boon thus offered to these Grecian Gentiles, than comes, moreover, the further information, that some there were, that "went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him," it is added, "to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." Acts 9:29.

Meantime, those men, who went about to slay him, – who were they? Possibly they were Grecians, if by the disputation in question, the annoyance produced was so intolerable to them, as to be productive of a wish and enterprise thus flagitious: and, if the evidence afforded by the rules of grammar be in this case regarded as conclusive, – the pronoun they having for its last possible antecedent the substantive Grecians– these, and no other, must have been the intended murderers. On the other hand, among the heathen – the philosophical disputants of this nation, – disputations, having any such abstractions for their subject, were not wont to be productive, of any such practical and flagitious consequences. Among the heathens, moreover, it appears not, that, antecedently to his conversion, the zeal of Paul had led him to put any to death: on the other hand among the Christianized Jews, his fellow-religionists, the number of persons, of whom he had put to death some, and in other ways plagued others, was unhappily but too great. By the religion into which they had been converted, – revenge, it is true, was not (as in that which they were converted from) magnified, but prohibited: but, the influence of it has never been equally efficient upon all minds.

Be this as it may, – upon his leaving Jerusalem, it was to the region of Syria and Cilicia, that, at this time, he betook himself. So, in his letter to his Galatians, he himself says, Gal. 1:21; and, by what is said in the Acts, he is not contradicted, but confirmed. By himself what is mentioned is – the region, viz. Syria and Cilicia: by the Acts what is mentioned is – the cities, viz. Cæsarea and Tarsus. Cæsarea, – whether at that time it was in Syria or not, – was, at any rate, little, if anything, out of the way, from Jerusalem to Tarsus. Cæsarea was a town upon the coast: – one among those maritime towns, which, whether parts or not of Syria, are in the way between the inland city, of Jerusalem, and the coast of Cilicia: with which coast, by a river, – Tarsus, marked in the map with the mark of a capital town, appears to communicate.

In speaking of this change of place, the terms employed by Paul, are general terms, – "I came." By what means he came, he does not mention: nor does there appear any particular reason why he should have mentioned them.

In the Acts, the account is more particular: – he was, in a manner, forced from the one place to the other: – he was, at any rate, escorted: it was by "the brethren," he was so dealt with. "Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." Acts 9:30.

By the brethren? – Yes. – But by what brethren? By the general body of the Christians, or any that belonged to it? No: – for, it was from their wrath, that he was making his escape. No: – not by the justly exasperated many; but by such few adherents as, under such prodigious disadvantage, his indefatigable artifice and energy had found means to conciliate.

SECTION 7.

MODE AND CAUSE OF ITS TERMINATION

In relation to this subject, we have two, and no more than two, accounts, – both from the same pen, – that of the historiographer in the Acts; and these two accounts, as usual, contradictory of each other. The first, in the order of the history, is that given by him in his own person: Acts 9:27, 28, 29. The other, is that given by him in the person of Paul: namely, in the course of his supposed first-made and unpremeditated speech, – when, on the occasion of his last visit to Jerusalem – his Invasion Visit, he was pleading for his life before the angry multitude. Acts 22:17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

Now then, let us compare the two accounts.

Speaking in his own person, – it is to the fear of certain Grecians, that the historiographer ascribes Paul's departure for Jerusalem. In disputing with them, he had been speaking "boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus": and thereupon, – and as we are desired to believe, therefore, – came certain designs and endeavours to slay him. Designs? on the part of whom? Answer: – on the part of those same Grecians: cause of these designs and endeavours, irritation, so it is intended we should suppose, – irritation, produced in the breasts of those same Grecians; – and produced by the dispute.

Now, as to the words of the historiographer, speaking in his own person. It is immediately after the mention of Paul's transactions with the Apostles and the other disciples, that after saying, Acts 9:28, that "… he was with them coming in and going out of Jerusalem," the narrative continues thus: ver. 29; "And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians, but they went about to slay him: ver. 30; Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus."

Such is the account given, of the departure of Paul from Jerusalem, on the occasion in question – given by the historiographer, speaking in his own person, of the manner of the departure, and at the same time of the cause of it. Behold now how different is the account given, of the same matter, by the same historiographer, in the same work, when speaking in the person of his hero. Nothing now as to any disputes with Grecians: nothing now of these, or any other human beings, in the character of beings who were angry with him, and that to such a degree, that, to save his life, it was deemed necessary by his adherents, – styled on this occasion "the brethren," to take charge of him, as we have seen, and convey him from Jerusalem to Cæsarea and elsewhere.

The case seems to be – that, between the time of writing the account which has just been seen, and the time for giving an account of the same transaction in the person of the hero, as above, – a certain difficulty presented itself to the mind of the historiographer: and, that it is for the solution of this difficulty, that he has recourse, to one of his sovereign solvents —a trance. The difficulty seems to have been this: The class of persons, whom, on that first visit of his he had exasperated, were – not "Grecians," or any other Gentiles, but Christians: Christians, the whole body of them – Apostles and Disciples together: the same class of persons, to which belonged those who, on the occasion of this his last visit – the Invasion Visit– were to such a degree exasperated, by this fourth intrusion of his, as to be attempting his life. How hopeless any attempt would have been, to make them believe, that it was not by themselves, but by a set of Heathens, that his life was threatened on that former occasion, is sufficiently manifest. Here then comes a demand, for a substitute, to that cause, which, distant as the time was, could not, however, be altogether absent from their memory: and which, so far as it was present, could not but heighten their exasperation: – this substitute was the trance.

The cause of the departure is now – not the fear of any human being, but the express command of "the Lord": – a command delivered in the course, and by means, of this same trance. Moreover, as if, from such a quarter, commands were not sufficient of themselves; on the present occasion, it will be seen, they came backed by reasons. Was it that, as the historiographer has been telling us in his own person, certain Grecians were exasperated? No: but that the persons, to whom, with Barnabas for his supporting witness, Acts 9:27, he had been telling his story, gave no credit to it: so that, by a man with his reputation in this state, nothing in the way of his business was to be done.

But now let us see the text. It comes immediately after that passage, in which Paul is made to speak of Ananias, as giving orders to him, in the name of the Lord: orders, concluding in these words: Acts 22:16: … "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This said, – his story, as told to the multitude, continues thus: "And it came to pass that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance: And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those that believed on thee: And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting to his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live."

It may now be seen, how useful and convenient an implement this same trance was: how well adapted, to the occasion on which it was employed. Taken by itself, this story about the enraged Grecians might serve to impose upon readers in general: but, to the knowledge of the really enraged Christians, whose wrath he was endeavouring to assuage, – it was not only too palpably false to be related to them, but too much so, to be even for a moment supposed to be related to them: hence came the demand for the supernatural cause. Nothing, it is evident, could be better suited to the purpose. The assertion was of the sort of those, which, how palpably soever untrue, are not exposed to contradiction by direct evidence: and which, supposing them believed, ensure universal respect, and put all gainsayers to silence.

An incident not unworthy here of notice, is – the sort of acknowledgment contained in the words – "for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me." In this may be seen – a confirmation of the important fact, so fully proved on the occasion of the first or Reconciliation Visit: and we see – with what consistency and propriety, the mention of it comes in, on the present occasion: namely, in a speech, made to a multitude, of which, many of those, – by whom he had been disbelieved and rejected on that former occasion, – must of course have formed a part.

Such is the fact, which, after having communicated to us, in his own person, Acts 9:26, "they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple," the historiographer is frank enough to communicate to us a second time, through the mouths of Paul and "the Lord," the one within the other. True enough this information: and, moreover, at Jerusalem, as well when the historiographer was writing, as when Paul was speaking, notorious enough: or we should hardly have had it here and now. But, what a truth to put into the mouth of Paul, whose title to credence for his claim, is so effectually destroyed by it!

To return to what, on the occasion of the first visit, is said by the historiographer, in his own person, about the Grecians. That it was false, as to the main point, – namely, that it was by the fear of those same Gentiles that he was driven out of Jerusalem, – is now, it is hoped, sufficiently evident. But, as to his having held disputation with them, – in this there seems not to be anything inconsistent or improbable: and this part, supposing it true, might, in so far as known, help to gain credence for that which was false.