Not Paul, But Jesus. Bentham Jeremy
declared, if the historian is to be believed, declared by the Lord himself – to have seen this introductory vision – this preparatory vision, for which it is so difficult to find a use. And thus it is, that in a vision, though vision means seeing, it is not necessary a man should have sight.
Meantime, of all these matters, on which his own existence, not to speak of the salvation of mankind, so absolutely depends, not a syllable is he to know, but through the medium of this so perfectly obscure and questionable personage – this personage so completely unknown to him – this same Ananias.
Three whole days he is kept from doing anything: during these three whole days the business of the miracle stands still. For what purpose is it thus kept at a stand? Is it that there might be time sufficient left for his learning to see, when his sight is returned, this preparatory vision, by which so little is done, and for which there is so little use?
SECTION 6.
VISIONS, WHY TWO OR THREE INSTEAD OF ONE
As to the matter of fact designated by the words Paul's conversion, so far as regards outward conversion, the truth of it is out of all dispute: – that he was converted, i.e. that after having been a persecutor of the votaries of the new religion, he turned full round, and became a leader. Whether the so illustriously victorious effect, had for its cause a supernatural intercourse of Paul with Jesus after his resurrection and ascension, and thence for its accompaniment an inward conversion – in this lies the matter in dispute.
From those, by whom, in its essential particular, the statement is regarded as being true, a natural question may be – If the whole was an invention of his own, to what cause can we refer the other vision, the vision of Ananias? To what purpose should he have been at the pains of inventing, remembering, and all along supporting and defending, the vision of the unknown supposed associate? Answer. – To the purpose, it should seem, of giving additional breadth to the basis of his pretensions.
Among that people, in those times, the story of a vision was so common an article, – so difficultly distinguishable from, so easily confounded with, on the one hand the true story of a dream, on the other hand a completely false story of an occurrence, which, had it happened, would have been a supernatural one, but which never did happen, – that a basis, so indeterminate and aërial, would seem to have been in danger of not proving strong enough to support the structure designed to be reared upon it.
On the supposition of falsity, the case seems to be – that, to distinguish his vision from such as in those days were to be found among every man's stories, as well as in every history, – and which, while believed by some, were disbelieved and scorned by others, – either Paul or his historian bethought himself of this contrivance of a pair of visions: – a pair of corresponding visions, each of which should, by reference and acknowledgment, bear witness and give support to the other: a pair of visions: for, for simplicity of conception, it seems good not to speak any further, of the antecedent vision interwoven so curiously in the texture of one of them, after the similitude of the flower termed by some gardeners hose in hose.
Of this piece of machinery, which in the present instance has been seen played off with such brilliant success upon the theological theatre, the glory of the invention may, it is believed, be justly claimed, if not by Paul, by his historian. With the exception of one that will be mentioned presently13, no similar one has, upon inquiry, been found to present itself, in any history, Jewish or Gentile.
The other pair of visions there alluded to, is – that which is also to be found in the Acts: one of them ascribed to Saint Peter, the other to the centurion Cornelius.
Paul, or his historian? – The alternative was but the suggestion of the first moment. To a second glance the claim of the historian presents itself as incontestable. In the case of Peter's pair of visions, suppose the story the work of invention, no assignable competitor has the historian for the honour of it: in the case of Paul's pair of visions, supposing that the only pair, the invention was at least as likely to have been the work of the historian as of the hero: add to this pair the other pair – that other pair that presents itself in this same work of this same history – all competition is at an end. In the case of even the most fertile genius, copying is an easier task than invention: and, where the original is of a man's own invention, copying is an operation still easier than in the opposite case. That an occurrence thus curious should find so much as a single inventor, is a circumstance not a little extraordinary: but, that two separate wits should jump in concurrence in the production of it, is a supposition that swells the extraordinariness, and with it the improbability, beyond all bounds.
SECTION 7.
COMMISSION TO PAUL BY JERUSALEM RULERS – COMMISSION TO BRING IN BONDS DAMASCUS CHRISTIANS – PAUL'S CONTEMPT PUT UPON IT
Per Acts, in the historical account, is stated the existence of a commission: – granters, the Jerusalem rulers; persons to whom addressed, Paul himself at Jerusalem; and the synagogues, i. e. the rulers of the synagogues, at Damascus: object, the bringing in custody, from Damascus to Jerusalem, all Christians found there: all adult Christians at any rate, females as well as males; at Paul's own desire, adds this same historical account (ix. 2.); "for to be punished," adds Paul 1st supposed unpremeditated oratorical account, xxii. 5. In the supposed premeditated oratorical account, Paul 2nd, the existence of authority and commission granted to him by the Chief Priests is indeed mentioned, xxvi. 12: but, of the object nothing is said.
In the unpremeditated oratorical account, such is the boldness of the historian, nothing will serve him but to make the orator call to witness the constituted authorities – the Jerusalem rulers – whoever they were, that were present, – to acknowledge the treachery and the aggravated contempt he had been guilty of towards themselves or their predecessors: towards themselves, if it be in the literal sense that what on this occasion he says is to be understood: "As also the High Priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the Elders, from whom also I received letters," &c., Acts xxii. 5. In the premeditated oratorical account, the boldness of the orator is not quite so prominent; he says – it was "with authority and commission from the Chief Priests" at Jerusalem, that he went to Damascus; but, for the correctness of this statement of his, he does not now call upon them, or any of them, to bear witness.
In respect of the description of the persons, of whom the Jerusalem rulers, exercising authority in their behalf, were composed, – the conformity, as between the several accounts, is altogether entire. In the historical account, it is the authority of the High Priest, and the High Priest alone, that is exercised: in the unpremeditated oratorical account, it is that of the High Priest and all the estate of the Elders: in the premeditated account, it is that of the Chief Priests: nothing said either of High Priests or Elders.
Neither, in the supposed unpremeditated oratorical account, is it stated – that, at the time and place of the tumult, the rulers thus called to witness, or any of them, were actually on the spot. But, the spot being contiguous to the Temple – the Temple, out of which Paul had been that instant dragged, before there had been time enough for accomplishing the determination that had been formed for killing him, – the distance, between the spot, at which Paul with the surrounding multitude was standing, Paul being under the momentary protection of the Roman commander – between this spot and the spot, whatever it was, at which the question might have been put to them, or some of them, could not be great.
On the part of the historian, the boldness, requisite for the ascribing the correspondent boldness to the orator, may be believed without much difficulty. The materials for writing being at hand, there was no more danger in employing them in the writing of these words, than in the writing of an equal number of other words.
Not so on the part of the orator himself. For, supposing the appeal made, the multitude might have saved themselves the trouble of putting him to death: the constituted authorities whom he was thus invoking – those rulers, against whom, by his own confession, he had committed this treason – would have been ready enough to proceed against him in the regular way, and take the business out of the hands of an unauthorized mob.
The truth of the story, and for that purpose
See Ch. xvii. §. v. 4. Peter's and Cornelius's visions.