Not Paul, but Jesus · Jeremy Bentham
FOOTNOTES:
But, for the support of this supposition, the grounds referred to for this purpose do not seem sufficient:--not that, if the supposition were true, any consequence material to the present purpose would follow. For this supposition, what ground there is, consists in a passage in the Acts:--Acts 18:20, 21, 22. 20. When they, the Jews at Ephesus, desired [him] to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; But bade them farewell, saying, I _must_ by all means _keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem_; but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus. And when he had _landed_ at Cæsarea, and _gone up_, and saluted the _church_, he _went down_ to Antioch. There we have the grounds of the supposition. But, what is the support they give to it?--declaration, affirming the existence of an intention, is one thing; actually existing intention is another. Even supposing the existence of the intention in question,--intention is one thing; corresponding action, another. Jerusalem is not mentioned. Cæsarea being on the sea-coast, Jerusalem is indeed in the interior: and therefore, it may be said, is a place, to which, if a man went from Cæsarea, he would "_go up_:" but, from Cæsarea, it being on the coast, a man could not go to any place in Judaea not on the coast, without _going up_.
So much for _place_:--and now as to _time_. The time mentioned as the object of the _intention_, is the _passover_; but, that the time, at which, being _gone up_, Paul "_saluted the church_"--this being all which, upon this _going up_, he is here stated as doing--that this time was the passover, is not stated. As to the _salute_ here stated as given to the _church_,--at the conclusion, and as a material part of the result, of this inquiry, it will appear plain beyond all doubt, that, if by "_the church_" be understood any member of it at Jerusalem, besides two, or at most three, of the Apostles,--according to this interpretation, from the time of his Conversion Visit to Damascus antecedently to his first visit to Jerusalem, down to the last visit here reckoned as his fourth--there never was a day on which the _church_ would have received his salute. What will also be rendered manifest is--that it was an object with the author of the Acts, to induce a belief, that Paul, before the conclusion of his first visit, was upon good terms with the church, and so continued to the last: and that, to this end, a purposed misrepresentation was employed by the historian. Not that, in regard to the visit here in question, to the purpose of the argument--it makes any sort of difference, whether it had place or had not. If it had place, neither the conclusion, nor any part of the argument, will be seen to require any variation in consequence.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.