Not Paul, but Jesus · Jeremy Bentham
SECTION 3.
TIME OF THE PARTITION TREATY, MOST PROBABLY THAT OF VISIT I. The time, at which this partition-treaty took place, appears involved in much obscurity, and presents some difficulties: question--whether it was at the first, or not till the third, of these visits--of these four visits of Paul's to Jerusalem. The consideration, by which the assigning to it the time of the first visit has been determined, is--that it was at this first visit, that the demand for it, in respect of all interests concerned, namely, that of the religion of Jesus--that of the existing Christians in general,--as well as that of the individuals particularly concerned on both sides,--took place: that, from that time, so, as far as appears, did the observance of it: and that it was not till a long time after, that either symptoms, or complaints of non-observance, seem to have made their appearance. 4. Among the conditions of the treaty, the financial stipulation has been brought to view:--party to be remembered, the poor--then under the gentle sway of the Apostles: party, by whom they were to be remembered, Paul--their recognized, though, for aught appears, no otherwise than locally and negatively recognized, associate. In and by the Deputation Visit, on the part of Paul, with the assistance of Barnabas,--we see this stipulation actually conformed to and carried into effect. From the Christians at Antioch to the Apostles at Jerusalem,--for the benefit of the poor, at that metropolis of the Christian world, by the conjoined hands of Paul and Barnabas,--money, it has been seen, was actually brought.
On the other hand, an observation which, at first sight, may seem to shut the door against this supposition, is--that whereas in his letter, to his Galatians, Gal. i. 18, 19, after saying, "I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days," and adding, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother"; he, not more than fourteen verses afterwards, Gal. 2:9, in the verse in which his account of this important treaty is continued,--speaks as if it was at that very time that he had seen--not only the above two Apostles, on this occasion designated by the names of James and Cephas--but John likewise: and that this must have been his third Jerusalem visit, because it is after _mention_ made of that same third visit, which, in a passage intermediate between these, namely, Gal. 2:1, is stated, in express terms, as being by fourteen years posterior to his first visit,[38] that this circumstance, of his seeing John likewise, is mentioned as having had place. But, in neither of these considerations, is there anything, that presents itself as conclusive, against the supposition--that whatever treaty there was, took place at the first visit.
1. As to the first, at that time it is, that for giving intimation of the treaty, _giving the right hands of fellowship_ is the expression employed: and that if this union were to be taken in a literal, and thence in a physical sense, as an agreement in which, as a token of mutual consent, the physical operation of junction of hands was employed,--here must have been an actual meeting, in which John was seen as well as the two others--and, consequently, on the supposition that the account thus given by Paul, is, in this particular, on both occasions correct,--this must have been a different meeting from the first: on which supposition, on comparison with the account given in the Acts of Paul's second visit,--there can be no difficulty in determining that this visit cannot have been any other than the third. But, so evidently figurative is the turn of the expression,--that, even in the language used in this country at this time, slight indeed, if it amounted to anything at all, would be the force, of the inference drawn from it, in favour of the supposition of mutual presence. To signify an agreement on any point--especially if regarded as important--who is there that would scruple to speak of his having given the right hand of fellowship to another, although it were known to be only by letter? or, even through the medium of a common friend, and without any personal intercourse?
2. As to the other consideration, whatsoever might be the force of it, if applied to a composition of modern times--after so many intervening centuries, during several of which the arts of literary composition have, with the benefit of the facilities afforded by the press, been the subject of general study and practice;--whatsoever on this supposition might be the force of it, applied to the style and character of Paul, little weight seems necessary to be attached to it. Of the confusion--designed or undesigned--in which the style of this self-named Apostle involves every point it touches upon, not a page can be read without presenting samples in abundance, to every eye that can endure to open itself to them: in this very work, some must probably have already offered themselves to notice; and before it closes, many will be presented in this express view: the point in question belongs to the field of chronology: and, of the perturbate mode of his operation in this field, a particular exemplification has been already brought to view, Ch. 2, in a passage, in which, of a long train of sufferings and perils,--some real, some to all appearance not so--the one first undergone is last mentioned.[39] From the order in which two events are mentioned by this writer, no argument, in any degree conclusive, can be deduced, for the persuasion, that that which stands first mentioned, was so much as intended by him to be regarded as that which first took place.
In the very passage, in which the giving the right hands of fellowship to him and Barnabas is mentioned, and immediately after these very words,--it is said--that "we _should go_ unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." Thus, then, the conjunct excursion of Paul and Barnabas--an excursion, not commenced till about ten years after this same first visit, Acts 13 and 14, is mentioned, as an incident at _that_ time future. True it is, that the word directly expressive of the future is, in the English translation, but an interpretation, and as such marked. But, had any prior excursion of this kind taken place before, there seems no reason to suppose, that the event, which, by the context, would surely have been taken for an event then as yet to come,--would, had the intention been to represent it as no more than a repetition of what had taken place already, have received a form, so ill adapted to its intended purpose. But, two verses before, stands that, in which mention is made of the circumstance, by which, according to Paul, the course taken by the Apostles, in respect of their entering, into this treaty, is brought to view. "But contrariwise," says he, Gal. 2:7, "when they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as _the Gospel_ of the circumcision was unto Peter:" 9. "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, _perceived_ the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we _should go_ unto the heathen," ... &c.
Now these _perceptions_--the perceptions thus ascribed by him to the Apostles--when was it that they were obtained? Evidently at no time whatever, if not at the time of his _first_ visit: for, these were the perceptions--say rather the conceptions--the conveyance of which is beyond dispute manifest, not only from the whole nature of the case, according to the accounts we have of it, but from the account expressly given by the author of the Acts; and that account, in some part confirmed, and not in any part contradicted, by Paul himself, and in this very epistle.[40] To conclude. That, at the time of the Deputation Visit, Visit III., the treaty in question could not but have been on the carpet, seems, it must be confessed, altogether probable, not to say unquestionable. But, that at the time of the Reconciliation Visit, Visit I.,--it was already on the carpet, seems, if possible, still more so. For, without some understanding between Paul and the Apostles--and that to the effect of this same treaty (the impossibility that Paul's conversion story should have been the cause, having, it is believed, been hereinabove demonstrated) without some understanding of this sort, neither the continuance ascribed to the Reconciliation Visit, nor the existence of either of the two succeeding visits, to wit, the Money-bringing Visit, and this Deputation Visit, seem within the bounds of moral possibility.[41]
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.