Kitabı oku: «Not Paul, But Jesus», sayfa 21

Of the behaviour observed by the Jerusalem Christians, on that occasion – Apostles, Elders, Deacons and ordinary brethren all together – nothing is said. Yet, of these there were many thousands on the spot, Acts 21:20: all of them of course informed of the place – the holy place, – in which, at the recommendation of the Elders, Paul had stationed himself. By the Jews of Asia were "all the people on this occasion stirred up," Acts 21:27: yet, among so many thousands, no protection, nor any endeavour to afford him protection, for aught that appears, did he experience. Yet Asia it was, that had been, to the exclusion of Judaea, the theatre of his labours: from Asia it was, that the train of attendants he brought with him, were come – were come with him to these brethren – "the brethren," – as if it had been said, all the brethren, – by whom, according to the author of the Acts, they were "received so gladly."

At this period ends all that, on the present occasion, it will be necessary to say, of this last recorded visit to Jerusalem. Of the two inconsistent accounts said to have been given by him of his conversion – one to the Jerusalem mob, the other to King Agrippa – full notice has been taken under the head of his conversion: of the miracles ascribed to him at Malta, mention is here made, in the chapter allotted to the history of his supposed miracles. Of any other subsequent acts or sayings of his, no notice will require to be taken in this place. The matter here in question has been – the sort of relation, stated as having had place, between this self-constituted Apostle, and those who beyond controversy were constituted such by, and lived as such with, Jesus himself: and to this have incidentally been added the causes, which have continually been presenting themselves, for suspicion, in respect of the verity and authenticity, or both, of the history, which, under the name of the Acts of the Apostles, has come down to us, connected by the operations of the bookbinder, in the same volume with the several histories of the four Evangelists, and the Epistles – not only of Paul himself but of others among the Apostles; and with the work styled, as if in derision, "The Revelations."

SECTION 5.
THE DESIGN OF THIS RECOMMENDATION JUSTIFIED

But the Apostles – says somebody – what are we to think of the Apostles? If by Paul a perjury was thus committed, were they not – all of them who joined in this recommendation – so many suborners of this same perjury?

The answer will, it is hoped, by most readers at least, have been anticipated. – Yes or no, if so it be, that it was their expectation that he would commit it: no, assuredly; if it were their expectation – their assured expectation – that he would not commit it: that, even in his person, even after all they had witnessed in him, the union of profligacy and rashness would never soar to so high a pitch. The necessity they were under, of ridding themselves of his presence was extreme: – of ridding themselves– and, what was so much more, their cause. Stay in the same town, and in the same company with them, he could not, – without being either their known adversary, or their known associate. Their known adversary he could not be, without either continuing himself to be an object of universal horror, or else rendering them objects of horror, to the whole body of their disciples. Their associate he could not be, without involving them in that odium, with which he himself was, by the confession of his own adherent and historiographer, covered. Under these circumstances, not to speak of the cause of mankind, for saving themselves and their cause from destruction, – what course could they take, so gentle, and at the same time, to all appearance, so surely effectual, as the proposing to him this test? – a test, which no man could rationally expect, that any man in his circumstances would take.

SECTION 6.
DRAGGED OUT OF THE TEMPLE BY JEWS OR CHRISTIANS, HE IS SAVED BY A GENTILE, NAMELY, A ROMAN COMMANDER

With this occurrence concludes so much of Paul's history, as, – for the purpose of perfecting the demonstration given, of the disbelief manifested towards his pretensions to a supernatural intercourse with the Almighty, – it was found necessary here to anticipate.

In the matter of the chapter – the 13th – in which Paul's supposed miracles are brought to view, – his history is, as to all those particulars which seemed necessary to be brought to view for the purpose of the present inquiry, – deduced to very near the time, at which the historian of the Acts, having conducted him to Rome, leaves him there: leaves him there, and with no other notice, than that of his having, at the time, at which the history closes, passed two years at that capital, in a sort of ambiguous state between freedom and confinement: waiting to receive, at the hands of the constituted authorities, the final determination of his fate.

Meantime, lest anything should be wanting, that could have contributed to the elucidation on a point of such supreme importance, follows in the next chapter a concluding and more particular view of the grounds, on which, on the occasion of his visit to the temple, the intention of deliberate perjury was found necessary to be imputed to him.

CHAPTER XI

Paul disbelieved continued. – Paul's fourth Jerusalem Visit continued. – Perjurious was the Purpose of the exculpatory Oath commenced by him in the Temple

SECTION 1.
GENERAL PROOF OF THE PERJURY FROM THE ACTS

We have seen the indignation produced by Paul's invasion of the dominion of the Apostles: we have seen it carried to its height, by his commencement of, and perseverance in, the exculpatory ceremony, for the purpose of which he made his entrance, and took up his lodgment in the temple. We have seen the fruits of that same indignation: we have seen the general result of them. What remains is – to give a clearer and more explicit conception, than can as yet have been given, of the cause of it.

This was – neither more nor less, than an universal persuasion – that the assertion, – to which, on his part, this ceremony had for its object the attaching the sanction of an oath, – was, to his full knowledge, false: the oath employed being, in its form, beyond comparison more impressive, than any that has been known to be at any time in use, in this or any other country: and that, accordingly, the confirmation given to the falsehood, in and by means of that most elaborate and conspicuous ceremony, was an act of perjury: of perjury, more deliberate and barefaced, than anything, of which, in these days, any example can have place.

That, on this occasion, the conduct of the self-constituted Apostle was stained with perjury, is a matter, intimation of which has unavoidably come to have been already given, in more parts perhaps of this work than one. But, for a support to a charge, which, if true, will of itself be so completely destructive of Paul's pretensions – of all title to respect, at the hands of every professor of the religion of Jesus – no slight body of evidence could have been sufficient.

For this purpose, let us, in the first place, bring together the several elementary positions, proof or explanation of which, may be regarded as necessary, and at the same time as sufficient, to warrant, in this case, a verdict of guilty.

To these charges, is immediately subjoined such part of the evidence, as is furnished, by the account of the matter, as given in the Acts: in another section will be brought to view the evidence, furnished by Paul himself, in his Epistles. The evidence from the Acts is of the circumstantial kind: the evidence from the Epistles is direct.

1. To Paul was imputed as a misdeed, the having recommended the forsaking of the Mosaic law. Recommended, namely, to such disciples of his as, having been born and bred under it, were found by him settled in some Gentile nation. Proof, Acts 21:21, … "They," 'the Jews which believe,' ver. 20, "are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."

2. To a great extent, the imputation was well grounded: for, to a great extent, it had been his practice, to give the recommendation thus described. Of this position the proof will follow presently.

3. By Paul, the truth of this imputation was utterly denied: denied by the opposite denegatory assertion: and, the imputation being as above well grounded, – in so far as any such denegatory assertion had been made by him, he had knowingly uttered a wilful falsehood.

4. In proof of the sincerity of this denial, it was proposed to Paul, on the part of the Apostles and Elders, to give a confirmation of it, by the performance of a certain appropriate ceremony.

5. The ceremony thus proposed, was one that was universally understood, to have the effect of attaching, to any assertion, connected with it for the purpose, the sanction of an oath.

6. Knowing such to be the effect of the ceremony, he gave his assent to the proposition, and determined, by means of it, to attach the sanction of an oath to such his denial, as above: and thereby, the assertion contained in that denial, being, as above, to his knowledge, false, – to commit, in that extraordinary solemn and deliberate form and manner, an act of perjury.

7. In pursuance of such determination, he accordingly repaired for that purpose to the temple and had his abode therein for several days: the completion of the requisite number being no otherwise prevented, than by the irruption of the indignant multitude, assured as they were of his being occupied in the commission of a perjury.

Proof of charges 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Acts 21:23, 24, 26, 27, 28.

23. "We, the Apostles and the Elders, or at least the Apostle James, ver. 18, have four men, which have a vow on them;

24. "Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that … all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

26. "Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

27. "And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews, which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him.

28. "Crying out, Men of Israel, help; This is the man, that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple; and hath polluted this holy place."

Of the perjuriousness of Paul's intent, a short proof, namely of the circumstantial kind, is thus already visible, in the indignation excited, – its intensity, its immorality, and the bitter fruits of it. Will it be said no? for that the indignation had, for its adequate cause, his being thought to have spoken slightingly of the law in question – it being the law of the land, – and that, to this imputation, the ceremony, it being, as above the performance of a vow, had no reference? Assuredly no: no such interpretation will be found tenable. True it is, that, by the persuasion, that he had thus been dealing by the Mosaic law, – by this persuasion, without need of anything else, the indignation may well have been produced: but it could only have been by the knowledge, that, upon his having been called upon to confess the having so done, or to deny it, he had, in this most extraordinary and universally conspicuous mode, given continuance and confirmation to his denial – it could only have been by this knowledge, that the excitement was raised up to so high a pitch. For, What was it that the information had charged him with? It was the forsaking Moses. What was the purpose, for which the recommendation was given to him – the recommendation to perform this ceremony? It was the purifying himself, "that all might know" that the information was groundless. "That those things," say the Apostles with the Elders to him, "whereof they," the thousands of Jews which believe, ver. 20, "were informed against thee were nothing:" – "to purify thyself," says the official translation: more appositely might it have said to clear thyself: for in that case, the idea of an imputation would clearly enough, though but implicitly, have been conveyed: whereas, to some minds, the idea conveyed by the word purify may perhaps be no other than that of some general cleansing of the whole character, by means of some physical process, to which, in so many minds, the psychological effect in question has, by the influence of artifice on weakness, been attached.

Such then, namely, the clearing himself of the imputation by so solemn a confirmation of the denial of it, – such was the purpose, for which, in the most unequivocal terms, his performance of the ceremony was recommended: such, therefore, was the purpose for which it was commenced; such, accordingly, was the purpose for which it would have been consummated, but for the interruption which it experienced: experienced not from his hands, but from hands among which, there seems sufficient reason to believe, were the hands, if not of the very persons by whom it had been recommended, at any rate of those who till that time had been in use to be guided by their influence.

To this interpretation, what objection is there that can be opposed? If any, it can only be that which to some minds may perhaps be suggested by the word vow.

But the fact is – this word vow is a mistranslation: the proper word should have been oath. By an oath everyone understands at first mention an assertory, not a promissory, declaration: by a vow, a promissory, not an assertory one. But an assertory declaration, as every one sees, is the only sort of declaration, that admits of any application to the case in question. By nothing that, in Paul's situation, a man could promise to do, in addition to the performance of the ceremony, could any evidence be given, of a man's having, or not having, done so and so, in any time past.

That by that which was actually done, that which was essential was considered as having been done, – is proved, by what is put into Paul's mouth in relation to this subject, in his defence against the accusation brought afterwards against him, before the Roman governor Felix, by the spokesman of the Jewish constituted authorities, Tertullus. There it is, that, beyond all doubt, what he is speaking of, is his CLEARANCE, as above: for there also, the word in the official translation, as well as in the Greek original, is purified: in the past tense, purified. This being assumed, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that either in the course of that part, which at the time of the irruption, was already elapsed of the seven days' ceremony, in the temple; or, what seems more probable, antecedently to the commencement of it, a denegatory declaration – a declaration denying the fact charged in the accusation, – had been made: for, that the ceremony itself was never accomplished, is what is expressly stated: – of the term of seven days stated as necessary to the accomplishment of it, no more than a part, it is said, had elapsed, when the final interruption of it took place.

To return to the time of Paul's entrance into the temple.

Thus, as hath been seen, stands the matter, even upon the face of the official English translation. But in verse 26, the word employed in the Greek original, removes all doubt. "Then," says the translation, "Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them, entered into the temple." Purifying himself, in the present tense, says the translation: and, even this alone taken into consideration, the purifying process, whatever it was, might be supposed to have been but commenced before the entrance into the temple, and as being thus as yet in pendency, waiting the exit out of the temple for its accomplishment. Thus it is, that, in the translation, the verb is in the present tense, purifying himself: but, in the Greek original, it is in the past tense, having purified himself: so that, in the original, the purification, whatever it may have been, is in express terms stated as having, even before his entrance into the temple, already accomplished.

Note that, if the historian is to be believed, he had on this occasion, the fullest opportunity, of being, in the most particular manner, acquainted with everything that passed. For, when, as above, the recommendation was given to Paul, on his appearance before the Apostle James and the Elders, – he, the historian, was actually present, "And the day following," says he, Acts 21:18, "Paul went in with us unto James; and all the Elders were present."

Supposing that the true interpretation, – of what use and effect then, it may perhaps be asked, was the ceremony, of which the temple was the theatre? The answer has been already given. It cannot have been any other than the attaching, to the declaration that had been made, the sanction, of an oath. Without the ceremony performed in the temple, the declaration was a declaration not upon oath, and as such not regarded as sufficient evidence: – evidence, in the shape which, the historian says, had been actually required for the purpose: when the ceremony, of which the temple was the theatre, had been gone through, and the last of the number of days, required for its accomplishment had been terminated; – then, and not before, it was regarded as having been converted into the appropriate and sufficient evidence. Thus it was, that this seven days' ceremony was no more than an elaborate substitute to the English ceremony of kissing the book, after hearing the dozen or so of words pronounced by the official functionary.

On this occasion, the Greek word rendered by the word vow, is a word which in its ordinary sense was, among Gentiles as well as Jews, exactly correspondent to our word prayer. But, the idea denoted by the word prayer, applies in this case with no less propriety to an assertory oath than to a promissory vow. Directly and completely, it designates neither. In both cases an address is made to some supposed supernatural potentate: in cases such as the present, beseeching him to apply the sanction of punishment to the praying individual, in the event of a want of sincerity on his part: in this case, in the event of his not having done that which, on this occasion, he declares himself to have done, or, what comes to the same thing, his having done that which he declares himself not to have done: in the other case, in the event of his not doing that which he has promised to do, or doing that which he has promised not to do.⁵⁷, had been paid, it would still lie at the option of the priest, to pronounce the whole procedure null and void, unless, and until any such final compliment as he chose to expect, were paid to him. Among the most obviously, as well as extensively convenient purposes, to which it was capable of being applied, is this of which the present case affords an example: namely, the manufacturing of evidence: could he but find means to satisfy the priest, a man might, to all legal purposes, and even to the satisfaction of all appropriately disposed minds, prove, and with conclusive effect, any thing to be false, which everybody knew to be true. By fabrication, falsification, or suppression of evidence, what is the right that may not be usurped? what is the wrong that may not, with success and impunity, be committed?
  In the Mosaic law, immediately before this institution Numbers, chap. 5., comes another, by means of which every man, who was tired of his wife, might, in another way, with the assistance of a priest – and, for aught that appears, any priest – clear himself of that incumbrance. All the man had to do was – to say he was "jealous" of her: the priest thereupon took charge of her. If priest and husband were agreed, "the water of jealousy" did its office: if not, the woman remained imprisoned. Against the superhuman evidence, afforded by the purifying process here in question, no quantity of human evidence was to be available. In like manner, to warrant this poisoning process, not any the smallest particle of human evidence was necessary: the case in which it is to be performed, is "if there be no witness against her, neither she be taken," says the text, Numbers 5. 13. Verily, verily, not without sufficient cause, did Jesus, from first to last, take every occasion, to weaken the attachment of the people, to a system of law, of which those institutions afford two, among so many samples. Yet, while in the very act of depreciating it, is he represented as declaring his purpose to be the fulfilling it: Matt. 5. 17. for, such was the verbal veil, which the prejudices he had to encounter, rendered it necessary to him at the moment, to throw over the tendency of his endeavors. Fulfill the very law he was preaching against? Yes: but in one sense only: namely, by fulfilling – not the real purpose of it, – the establishment of the corrupt despotism of the priesthood, – but the professed purpose of it, the good of the community: in regard to the law, fulfilling, in a word, whatever there was that was good in it, whatever there was that deserved to be fulfilled. Jesus, in whose opinion death was too severe a punishment, for a wife, in the case of a breach, on her part, of a contract, the breach of which was by the other contending party practised with impunity – Jesus, who accordingly, in saving the offender, exposed to merited disgrace the sanguinary law – was doubtless still further from approving, that parish priests, in unlimited numbers, should poison innocent women for the accommodation of their husbands, or sell licenses to commit every imaginable wrong by perjury.
  Vow is oath: this is not the only occasion, in which the self-constituted Apostle, if his historiographer is to be believed, took the benefit, whatever it was, of this ceremony. In Acts 18:16, he "shaved his head," it is said, at Cenchrea: – why? – "for he had a vow upon him." What the vow was, we are not told; this, however, we know, as well from Acts 21:26, as from Numbers 6, he could not have got anything by it, had the parson of the parish of Cenchrea been otherwise than satisfied with the "offering" that was made.


⁵⁸ he makes a defence for Paul before Festus;⁵⁹

he makes a defence for Paul before Festus and Agrippa;⁶⁰ and, on no one of all those occasions, is the defence anything to the purpose. He, indeed, makes Paul declare, that he, Paul, had always been a strict observer of the Mosaic ordinances. This may have been either true or false: but, true or false, it was equally foreign to the purpose. Not improbably, it was, in a considerable degree, true: for if, while he gave to other Jews his assurance, that the operations in question, burthensome as they were, were of no use, he himself continued to bear the burthen notwithstanding, – the persuasiveness of his advice would naturally be augmented by the manifestation thus given of disinterestedness. It may accordingly have been true: but, false or true, it was equally foreign to the purpose: the question was – not what he had done himself; but what he had recommended it to others to do.

Thus – from everything that appears, by all such persons as had the best means of information – the charge made upon him was believed, – let it now be seen, whether we should not be warranted in saying, known, – to be true.

As to "The Jews of Asia," – and the mention made of this class of men, as the instigators of the tumult – can any support be derived from it, for the inference, that it was by something else in Paul's conduct, and not by any such perjury as that in question, that the vent, thus given to the indignation, was produced?⁶¹ No, assuredly: altogether inconsistent would any such supposition be, with the main part of the narrative. Whoever were the persons with whom the manual violence originated; – whatever were the reproaches cast upon the invader on other grounds; – the purpose – the sole purpose – for which he entered upon the ceremony, is rendered as plain as words can make it. It was the clearing himself of the charge of teaching Jews to forsake Moses: and, supposing the fact admitted, everything, in the way of justification, being, before such a tribunal, manifestly inadmissible, – of no such charge was it possible for him to clear himself, without denying the truth of it. But, according to the historian, to confirm this denial, by the solemnity, whatever it was, – was the purpose, and the sole purpose, of it: of this, the negative assertion, contained in the denial, being untrue, and, by him who made it, known to be so, – confirming such denial, by the solemnity, – call it oath– call it vow– call it anything else, – was committing an act of perjury: and, to believe that such his denial was false, and yet not believing him guilty of perjury – at any rate, on the supposition of the accomplishment of the solemnity – was not possible. How numerous so ever may have been the other causes of provocation, given by him – how numerous so ever, the different descriptions of persons to whom they had been given; – no disproof could, by all of them put together, be given, by this solemnity, to the denial in question, – supposing it false.

To the present purpose, the only question is – whether, by Paul, on the occasion in question, an act of perjury was, or was not, committed? not – what was the cause, whether that, or any other, of any indignation of which he was the object. Even therefore, might it be allowed, that a vow, in the sense of which it is contradistinguished from an oath, was performed by him, or about to be performed, – still it would not be the less undeniable, that it was for the purpose of converting the simple declaration into a declaration upon oath, that he entered upon the solemnity: and that, therefore, if in the simple declaration there was anything to his knowledge false, the consequence is – that by his converting it into a declaration upon oath, he rendered himself guilty of perjury.

The observation, thus applied, to what is said of the "Jews of Asia," will be seen to be applicable, and, with equal propriety, to what is said about his being charged with "bringing Greeks into the temple:" and, in particular, about his being supposed to have brought in "The Ephesian Trophimus:" and moreover, what may, in this last case, be observable, is – that this about the Greeks is expressly stated as being a further charge, distinct from the main one: nor yet is it so much as stated, that, by any such importation, to what degree so ever offensive, any such effect, as that signified by the word pollution was produced.

Not altogether destitute of probability seems the supposition, that these two circumstances – about the Jews of Asia, and about Trophimus – may have been thrown in, by this adherent of Paul's, for the purpose of throwing a cloud of confusion and obscurity over the real charge: and if so, the two circumstances, with the addition of the three different defences, put into the hero's mouth, on the three several occasions of the endeavour, – must be acknowledged to have been employed, not altogether without success.

Here then closes that part of the evidence, which, to the purpose of a judgment, to be passed at this distance of time from the facts, may be considered as so much circumstantial evidence: in the next section may be seen that part, which comes under the denomination of direct evidence.