Not Paul, but Jesus · Jeremy Bentham
FOOTNOTES:
Thus inconclusive is the argument, by which the existence of a reconciliation is inferred. Against evidence so weak, the contrary evidence seems decisive. After mention made by him of the rupture,--had any reconciliation ever taken place, within the compass of time embraced by his history, would the author of the Acts have left it unnoticed? That, among his objects was the painting every incident, in colours at least as favourable, to the church in general, and to Paul in particular, as he durst,--is sufficiently manifest. By a rupture between two such holy persons,--a token, more or less impressive, of human infirmity, could not but be presented to view: and, to any reflecting mind--in those marks of _warmth_ at least, to say nothing worse, which, from first to last, are so conspicuous, in the character and conduct, of this the historian's patron and principal hero, ground could scarce fail to be seen, for supposing--that it was to _his_ side rather than that of Barnabas--the generous and ever-disinterested Barnabas--that the blame, principally, if not exclusively, appertained. _Interview the Fourth.--Peter at Antioch.--Deputies to Antioch from Jerusalem, Judas and Silas.--Paul disagrees with Peter and Barnabas, quits Antioch, and on a Missionary Excursion takes with him Silas. What concerns the Partition Treaty, down to this Period, reviewed.--Peter and the Apostles justified._
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.