Jeremy Bentham - Not Paul, But Jesus

12. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there , – Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me: Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. – And he said: The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. – For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. – And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized , and wash away thy sins; calling on the name of the Lord.

I. In the historical account, the speech has in it several distinguishable parts.

I. "Brother Saul."

First comes the address, in which Saul, the future Paul, is addressed by disciple Ananias by the name of brother . If, as between Jew and Jew, this was a common form of salutation, – so far everything is in order. But, if it was only in consideration of his having been denominated a disciple, to wit, of Jesus, – the salutation is rather premature: the conversion, supposing it effected, is, at any rate, not yet declared. Not only in the historical account is this appellation employed, but likewise in the oratorical one.

The attention of Paul being thus bespoken by his visitor, mention is thereupon made of the purpose of the visit.

I. In the first place comes a recital. "The Lord (says he), even Jesus, that appeared unto thee on the way as thou camest, hath sent me"… Unfortunately, according to the historian himself, this assertion, as we have seen already, is not true. In no manner or shape did the Lord Jesus, or any other person, make his appearance; – all that did appear was the light – the light at midday: so he has just been writing, and before the ink, if ink it was that he used, was dry, already had he forgotten it.

This, however, is but a collateral averment: – a recital, an episode, matter of inducement , as an English lawyer would phrase it.

Purpose the first. "That thou mightest," says Ananias, "receive thy sight." Thus says Ananias in the historical account: in the supposed oratorical one he is more concise. No supposed past occurrence referred to: – no purpose declared. "Receive thy sight" are the words.

Purpose the second. That thou mightest "be filled with the Holy Ghost," says the historical account. But in a succeeding passage what is the purpose, which, in the supposed oratorical account Ananias is made to speak of, in the design that it should be taken for the purpose which the Lord by his commandment meant to be accomplished? Not the being filled by the Holy Ghost; only the being baptized. "And now, why tarriest thou? (Acts xxii. ver. 16) Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Well but (says somebody) receiving the Holy Ghost, and being baptized, – by these two expressions, is not one, and no more than one effect – one and the same effect – to be understood? No, in truth, if the historian himself is to be believed. Turn to another chapter – the very next chapter before this, Acts 12 to 17, and there you will see, that the being baptized was one thing, the receiving the Holy Ghost another thing, and much more. For administering the ceremony of baptism, a single Apostle, Philip, was sufficient: whereas, for the causing the Holy Ghost to be received, nothing less was requisite than the cooperation of two Apostles, and those two commissioned by the rest.

So serious always, according to this historian, was the difference, that it was after he had been already baptized, and baptized gratis in a crowd, that for the power of conferring this benefit, whatever it was that it was composed of, Sorcerer Simon made to the two Apostles, those offers – those pecuniary offers – which are said to have been no sooner made than rejected. Acts 13 to 24.

In the historical narrative, the effect is as complete as it is remarkable. Fall from his eyes a portion of matter of the nature or resemblance of scales: whereupon he receives sight forthwith.

In the supposed oratorical account, whatsoever had been meant by scales, nothing is said of them. Neither is the declaration made of the completeness of the case quite so explicit. One look he gave – gave to his wonder-working surgeon – and instead of its being given forthwith – to give this one look required, it should seem, if not a whole hour, at any rate so little less, that any time less than an hour could not – such, in this supposed unpremeditated speech, was the anxiety felt for correctness – could not be ventured to be particularized.

The more closely these scales, or things resembling scales, are looked at, the more difficult will it be to find them amount to anything. In no cure, performed upon eyes in any natural way, in these our days – upon eyes that have lost their sight – do any scales fall off, or anything in any degree resembling scales; – in no disorder of the eyes, known to have place in these our days, do scales, or anything like scales, come over the eyes. By the taking of matter from the eyes, sight, it is true, is every now and then restored: but this matter is not matter, foreign in relation to the eye and exterior to it; but one of the component parts called humours of the eye, which, by losing its transparency having suspended the faculty of vision, is let out by a lancet; whereupon not only is the faculty of sight restored, but the part which had been extirpated restored likewise; and without any expense in the article of miracles.

On the supposition of falsity, – quere the use of this circumstance? Answer. To afford support to the conception, that memory and not imagination was the source from which the story was derived. True it is, that, instead of support, a circumstance exposed to contradiction would be an instrument of weakness: if, for example, on the supposition that Paul had no companions on the road, names indicative of really existing and well-known persons had been added, to the intimation given in the Acts , of the existence of such companions. But to no such hazard was the story of the scales exposed: not to any great danger, on the supposition of the existence of Paul's Ananias: not to any danger at all, upon the supposition of his non-existence.

But, upon this occasion, now again once more present themselves – present themselves to the mind's eye – Paul's companions. That they were blinded at all can scarcely, it has been seen, be believed, if on this matter the historian himself is believed. For, per Acts ix. 8, "they led him by the hand: " so, per Paul 1st, Acts xxii. 11, "When I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of those that were with me, I came unto Damascus." But if, notwithstanding so it was that they too were blinded, – how was it with their eyes? Had their eyes scales upon them? did these scales ever fall off? – if so, by what means were they made to fall off? their evidence would have been not much, if anything, less impressive, – and it would have been much less open to suspicion, – than Paul's evidence, supposing him to have spoken of these scales – which the historian, to whom, if he is to be believed, their existence is so well known, did not take upon him to represent Paul as saying that he did. But if so it was, that, though rendered blind as Paul's, no scales were superinduced upon, nor consequently made to fall off, the eyes of those nameless and unknown persons, – how came they to be superinduced upon and made to fall off from the eyes of their singularly favoured principal? If, for a length of time more or less considerable, they really were made blind, – it was, if the historian is to be believed, by the same cause by which, in the instance of Paul's eyes, this same effect was produced: – the same cause, to wit an extraordinary light at noonday. If, whatsoever was the matter with them, the eyes of these ordinary persons could be set to rights without a miracle, what need could there be of a miracle for the producing the same desirable effect in the person of this their leader or master, extraordinary as this same leader or master was?