Bentham's "Not Paul, But Jesus" Revisited
By William Walter Kay BA JD
JEREMY Bentham was born in 1748 unto a line of London lawyers. His father amassed a fortune flipping real estate. England’s youngest university grad at 18, Jeremy joined the Bar at 24.
His inheritance excusing him from practicing, Bentham wrote legal texts which were well-received in America and France. Jefferson praised Bentham. The French awarded Bentham citizenship and assembled his manuscripts into a comprehensive, readily adopted, national legal code. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Virginia borrowed from this code. Bentham’s five-volume Rationale for Judicial Evidence earned marquis shelf-space in judges’ chambers and lawyers’ libraries across French and English speaking worlds.
George III disliked Bentham thus thwarted his substantial efforts toward prison reform. Bentham’s overarching goal was a society based upon the principle of “the greatest good to the greatest number, and subordinate the whole to rational calculations of utility.” He championed republicanism and universal suffrage. He never joined the Radicals but supported them.
Bentham published Not Paul But Jesus in 1823 or 1825. (1) Fearing prosecution for heresy, or for denouncing the Church Creed, Bentham published under the name Gamaliel Smith or Conyers Middleton – the latter, a Cambridge Divine twice convicted of heresy. (Middleton’s 1729 Letter from Rome scandalously rooted Christianity into pagan idolatry.) As for the 1820s politico-religious context:
Not Paul But Jesus tread a trepidly trod Anglican trail. Bishop Gastrell’s The Christian Institutes (1707) espied two New Testament religions: one from Jesus, one from Paul. While some compatriots assailed the entire Christian edifice, Bentham mined its conspicuous scriptural weakness: Paulism.
Apostle Paul or Imposter Paul?
“Apostle” means someone sent on a mission – an envoy. To Christians, apostles are the twelve disciples of Jesus who witnessed the resurrection and received instructions on that day.
The title of Paul’s bio, Acts of the Apostles, misleads. The only apostle in Acts playing more than a cameo role is Peter. In Acts’ crucial latter half, where Peter interacts with Paul, Peter is a disguised and secondary character. Paul also shakes hands with “James, the brother of Jesus,” another stand-in character. Moreover, this James wasn’t one of The Twelve, nor even a disciple.
To Bentham, Paul was the “anti-apostle.” Paul’s doctrine isn’t the apostles’ doctrine. Paul railed against the apostles. He boasted of not preaching their religion, and of never having been taught by them. He declared superiority over them. Paul’s gospel adds nothing to the teachings of Jesus, and lacks any claim to be considered part of the religion of Jesus. The single Jesus “quote” in Acts isn’t from Jesus. (3) (Paul’s two anecdotes about Jesus are obvious interpolations.) (4)
When Paul and his partner-in-crime, Barnabas, conversed with “apostles” they avoided doctrinal debate; preferring to laud their success in converting Gentiles and to praise Paul’s passionate performances. They broached the circumcision issue only when it impeded Gentile recruitment. Shortly after this discussion Paul publically excoriated the senior apostle, …in the name of Jesus. With what standing could Paul possibly argue doctrine with brethren of a sect predicated on Jesus’ sermons when Paul, alone among them, had never heard these sermons? Such a farce never played.
When Bentham calls Paul an “imposter” he isn’t tossing casual slurs. (5) Paul was an imposter. Paul began preaching his newfound religion immediately after his alleged conversion without approval from that religion’s leaders. Paul travelled the land as a self-appointed apostle from a church he never even joined let alone received instructions from. He performed baptisms, exorcisms, and faith healings in the name of this religion. He collected money in the name of this religion’s charity. Paul lacked the authorization he presented himself as possessing. If Paul was a minister of this church “so then are all the imposters who they falsely pretend to be.”
Paul claimed the power to transmit the Holy Ghost through baptism. (6) Bentham asks: “who gave Paul this power?” Paul claimed his ministry came direct from God (7). He “conferred not with flesh and blood.” (8) He boasted:
In no Bible verse do any of The Twelve ordain Paul. In no verse does any apostle acknowledge the veracity of Paul’s conversion. During his Jerusalem junkets, Paul darted about furtively, fearing members of the church he claimed to represent. On the road, Paul avoided regions where brethren lived. He preached in Damascus for a few days, courtesy a sheaf of arrest warrants and a team of bodyguards. He then targeted settlements where few Jews lived. He dared not preach in Jerusalem.
Paul recounts the whippings and beatings he suffered along the way. (10) After noting the punishments aren’t humanly endurable, Bentham points out that whenever Paul plied his schtick in a city hosting an organized Jewish population, he provoked violence. Bentham adds that philosophical discussions, even about God, seldom generate violence. (11) Paul was a fake priest who charged fees for services. Paul solicited coins for Jerusalem’s poor and put those coins into his purse. This bought you a beatdown back in the day. Bentham repeatedly accuses Paul of “obtaining money on false pretenses.”
One condition of the confidential “partition agreement” Paul entered into with Jerusalem’s High Priests, was that Paul would “remember the poor” – i.e., during his travels he would solicit donations for indigent brethren in Jerusalem. Paul aggressively collected donations for “the poor saints of Jerusalem” …and he lived on those donations. (12)
How much did Paul remit? Evidence is scant and the timeline confused. Paul mentions a quick money-drop in Jerusalem occurring 6 years after his first return visit, yet several years later he claims to have avoided Jerusalem for 14 years. In any event, after said money-drop (if not before), Paul stopped remitting donations but continued fundraising in: Corinth, Macedonia, Achaia, Ephesus, then back to Macedonia, then to Greece etc.; often staying a year or more at each location. Remitting donations required carrying coins to Jerusalem, with bodyguard. Paul never did this. He eschewed Jerusalem. He embezzled. (13)
Paul setup cult cells around the northeast Mediterranean (under the purloined name of his self-adopted church). He was running a business – a fraudulent one – but a business none the less. Listen to Paul whine about a promising franchise losing money due to half-assed staff performance:
He subsidizes his Corinthian branch with donations collected by other congregations while covering his own expenses with donations collected in Macedonia. In Philippians he assures his flock that gifts to Paul are really gifts to God. (15)
Paul’s Miracles
Bentham smirks that Paul’s “miracles” offer scant evidence of divine commission. In fact, Paul’s “miracles” are so bogus they bolster his historicity, albeit in a backhanded way.
First, there are the cliché faith healings – one of a Cypriot notable who recovered from some unknown ailment after Paul’s intervention; and the other of a cripple Paul blessed with mobility. Bentham presumes the latter was a staged con-job deploying a fake invalid. (16) Paul’s later use of his dirty laundry to dispel diseases was at least original. (17)
Paul’s ‘bring-the-dead-to-life’ miracle occurred during a sermon he gave in a house-church. It must have been a snoozer because a youth seated on a rafter fell asleep and fell off. He lay unconscious for a moment before Paul brought him back to life. (18)
Paul himself defied death. Sitting by a campfire he was bitten by some small animal. He shook it off and miraculously survived. Bentham speculates the critter was probably a common leech. (19)
Then there’s the Harry Potter stuff. Paul confronted a Sorcerer, called him “child of Satan,” and shazammed him blind with a curse. (20) Paul also used his exorcism skillset to silence a Divineress. (21) Finally, a demon claiming to know Paul stripped and tortured a rival exorcist and his seven-man crew (who were somehow both vagabonds and sons of a High Priest). (22) This also demon touched-off of an impossibly large and “miraculous” book-burning!? (23)
Paul was comforted by an angel during a storm, and cheered-up by God while in jail. (24) Bentham notes that in most of Paul’s supernatural episodes, Paul is oddly passive; such as when an earthquake freed him from jail. (25)
Paul’s Gospel
Bentham bemoans how Paul’s gospel “lacks appreciable objective quantities.” Asked by Agrippa II to explain what his religion could do for people, Paul responds:
Bentham dismisses this as “nothingness;” a vague description of a reward system. Vacuousness aside, Paulism does possess key distinguishing features.
Firstly, biblical deployment of Platonist ideas like: Holy Ghost, Immortal Soul, and Divine Judgment in the Afterlife etc., concentrate in Pauline literature. The Old Testament is almost devoid of such concepts.
Secondly, Nazareth appears nowhere in the Old Testament. The New Testament mentions Nazareth twelve times, the demonym “Nazarene” four times, and “Nazorean” thirteen times. Spellings varied. Said references are mostly in Pauline literature.
(To takeover the Jesus Movement, in the early second century, Paulists transformed their canon by deleting “Nazarite” – the religion Paul actually attached himself to – and by littering the text with variations of Nazareth, Nazarene and Nazorean. Changing Jesus’s birthplace to Nazareth turned Jesus and company into “Naz-somethings.” This trick inked over pre-existing references to Nazarites. This is where the bodies are buried.)
(Only a smattering of the thousands of Biblical characters are identified by birthplace. This was usually done to distinguish the character from others with the same name, which wouldn’t have been necessary for “Saul of Tarsus” (Paul) or “Jesus of Nazareth.” Saul was Jerusalem born and raised. Jesus, the carpenter-messiah, arose in an allegorical short story written around 75. Jesus is a fictitious character who never walked on land let alone water. He was born wherever gospel authors or editors fancied.)
Thirdly, Pauline literature contains one of the rare biblical references to the “Antichrist.” (27) Bentham quips that if anyone was anti-Christ it was Paul. (28)
Fourthly, Paulism’s emphasis on ritualized washing away of sins is notable. Baptisms don’t occur in the Old Testament, but happen dozens of times, albeit not-exclusively, in the Pauline canon. Here’s Bentham on Paul’s baptism:
Finally, while apocalypticism pervaded first century Judaism, Paul’s insistence that The End was mere years away, seems rare. Bentham presciently recognises how Paul’s hysterical messaging compelled his cult to self-isolate from “impure non-believers,” and to don “helmets of faith” to protect themselves from outside persuasion.
Christian “elders” in the early first century?
At the Jerusalem Conference “apostles and the elders” appear three times. At the Peter-Paul showdown in Antioch “apostles and elders” appear several times. While Bentham notes “elders” and “apostles” form two exclusive groups, he skirts exploring who these shadowy elders might be. (30).
In the proffered narrative, Jesus’ church began in 28 then suffered setbacks in 33. The surviving religion revolved around The Twelve. How could a church, within a few years, acquire supervisory elders? How could anyone be more senior than an apostle? Elders atop the Jesus Movement exist only in Pauline literature. In 35 Paul infiltrated a church old enough to have an institutionalized council of elders presiding over the priesthood. This couldn’t have been the Jesus Movement.
Bentham envisions a church with thousands of members who pooled funds into a commonwealth managed by trustees. This church possessed “a regularly formed system of money-gathering spread out over various countries.” (31) Again, this couldn’t have been the Jesus Movement. When Bentham hints the church in question is Nazarite, he ventures onto thin ice. To publish the truth; that is, Paul never heard the words “Christian” or “Nazareth,” would have guaranteed Bentham’s prosecution.
At the same time, Bentham needed to describe certain facets of this church to support his contention that greed motivated Paul. As this church’s main persecutor Paul surveyed its financial affairs. Bentham contends “the prime object of his (Paul’s) ambition” was capturing the commonwealth fund, and that this goal “never quitted its hold on his concupiscence.” (32)
The Road to Damascus: a muddled ghost story told by a known liar
Paul is the source for all seven biblical accounts of his conversion. In the common telling, Paul’s conversion occurs in 35. Paul’s scribe, Luke, joins Paul in 59 and completes Acts after Paul’s death in 64. (33) Paul’s letters, being first-hand accounts written closer in time to the events described, bear greater evidentiary weight than Acts. These letters don’t even mention the road to Damascus. Here, Paul quickly, evasively describes his conversion as:
The spectacular version of Paul’s conversion suspiciously debuts a quarter century after the alleged event.
Two non-witnesses reference Paul’s conversion. Barnabas claims Paul “had seen the Lord.” Ananias also describes Jesus appearing to Paul. Bentham reminds:
As well, Barnabas only knew what Paul told him while Ananias relied on apparitions.
Acts contains three Road-to-Damascus accounts.
First: Paul is knocked down by a light from heaven then a voice tells him to go to Damascus and await further instructions. His companions remain standing. They hear the voice. (37)
Second: Paul is again knocked down by the light and given cursory instructions. His companions, however, do not hear the voice. (38)
Third: Paul and his companions are all knocked down by the light. The voice gives Paul detailed instructions in Hebrew. Whether or not his companions could listen in is omitted. (39)
There are other omissions and contradictions, but the detailed instructions given by the Lord in the third account particularly disrupt the plot. A parallel story is told of a Damascene Jew, Ananias, who received a divine visitation telling him to find Paul and give him his mission. (40) The third account renders Ananias redundant. (Ananias was loved by all Damascene Jews and a leader of an ostracised church – impossible.)
Bentham deems the Ananias detour a hackneyed theatrical contrivance whereby supernatural occurrences gain credence if more than one character reports a similar experience. Bentham takes the same position regarding Paul’s unnamed, undescribed travelling companions. Are they co-travellers or confederates? As no further mention is made of them, Bentham concludes: “He had no such companions.” They were made-up witnesses to the supernatural occurrence. (41)
Add to this conflicted, implausible tale the fact that Paul was almost unanimously disbelieved by his countrymen, and one must then conclude his Road-to-Damascus tale is a fabrication. Bentham opines:
Furthermore, Paul never says why he switched religions. He provides no explanation other than “revelation” – that “mysterious and uninstructive word.” (43)
From this combination of facts it follows that Paul never underwent sincere internal religious change. He feigned conversion and kept attacking the religion he originally set out to destroy.
Damascus and back
Paul transformed: “from authorized blood-stained persecutor of a religion into preacher of that religion.” (44) Paul ran a Pharisee death-squad that abducted and killed religious rivals. In 34 he orchestrated the daylight murder of Stephen – a trustee of the “Christian” (Nazarite) church.
One problem with the plot is Acts 5 has Pharisee High Priest Gamaliel (Paul’s boss) calling for an end to the persecution of the Jesus Movement. Soon after, conversely, Gamaliel and other High Priests dispatch Paul to Damascus with written orders to arrest Jesus followers and haul them back to Jerusalem. (45)
Bentham suggests Gamaliel and Paul conspired to capture the financial resources of a rival church. Paul was supposed to use the threat of arrest to takeover this church’s Damascus operation. (46) Arrest warrants were designed “to place at his (Paul’s) disposal the lot of the Christians of Damascus.” Paul “planned to become a declared convert to the religion for the purpose of setting himself at the head of it.” (47) Gamaliel’s faux peace deal facilitated Paul’s circuitous, surreptitious attack – which failed abysmally.
Within days of Paul’s preaching his newfound religion in Damascus synagogues Damascene Jews “took council to kill him.” (48) They stationed sentries at city gates to prevent his escape. Paul was placed in a basket and lowered from a window in the city wall.
Again we confront discrepancy. In 2 Corinthians it wasn’t Jews hunting Paul:
A more serious plot defect follows. In Acts Paul’s first destination, upon fleeing Damascus, is Jerusalem:
In Galatians, however, after fleeing Damascus Paul preaches to Gentiles in Arabia for three years. (51)
In both scenarios Paul returns to Jerusalem.
Decoding Paulism
If you were Paul returning to Jerusalem from your harrowing adventure in Damascus (and/or Arabia) upon whose door would you first knock:
A. Gamaliel – the man who sent you on the mission, and who educated you since childhood and employed you ever since; or,
B. Peter – the chief priest of the church whose leaders you’ve been kidnapping and murdering, and whose brethren roundly think you’re a liar.
Hint: the man opening the door welcomes you in and lets you crash on his couch for two weeks.
The answer is obvious, but Pauline literature has Paul showing up unannounced on Peter’s door stoop. The two had never spoken before.
Decoding Pauline literature requires grasping the fact that in the first two Peter-Paul meetings, “Peter” must have been, in the original text, Gamaliel. In the next three Peter-Paul encounters (after Gamaliel’s death) “Peter” is Gamaliel’s son, Simeon. (Acts 15:14 refers to Peter as Simeon.) Paul’s contempt now becomes familiar. Paul and Simeon were both Gamaliel-trained Pharisees, and childhood acquaintances.
If you were Paul returning to Jerusalem from a three-year stint masquerading as a Nazarite priest, and you wished to continue this enterprise, who in Jerusalem need you reconcile your situation with:
A. The Nazarite High Priest; or,
B. The purported brother of the fictitious founder of a religion that does not yet exist.
Where Pauline literature reads “James the brother of Jesus” substitute “Nazarite High Priest.” At their first meeting an obvious, but private, transfer of money from Paul and Barnabas to the two High Priests takes place. Both the Nazarite High Priest and the Pharisee High Priest (Gamaliel) agree that as long as Paul preaches only to distant Gentiles and “remembers the poor,” they won’t intervene. Paul and the Nazarite High Priest shake hands. (52) Elders present were Nazarites.
Paul Disbelieved
Paul’s first three Jerusalem trips came under the protection of Barnabas – a wealthy Cypriot who patronized Jerusalem’s priestly milieu. Without Barnabas’s mediation no reconciliation could have been effected. Acts 9:26-7 delivers a weighty parcel:
Note how unbelieved Paul was. A dozen additional passages evince near universal distrust. Bentham hammers on this point. If nobody believed Paul then, why believe him now? Bentham expands:
Paul’s credibility deficit surfaces again near the end of his first return trip when an angelic Jesus warns:
“Brethren” were required to escort Paul to Caesarea. Bentham jibes: brethren couldn’t mean Christian brethren for it was from their wrath Paul fled. (55)
Jerusalem Conference
Paul’s second return trip (circa 43) occurs after he and Barnabas scrounged coins in Antioch using a scam prophesy about famine in Jerusalem. They executed a quick money-drop in Jerusalem (which Luke redacts) without conversing with apostles. Their next Jerusalem visit (circa 52) aimed at resolving a dispute which developed in Antioch. Upon arrival in Jerusalem:
Leaving aside why Christians had to assuage a Pharisean sect; Paul and Barnabas attended the Jerusalem Conference to defend their practice of not requiring Gentile converts to undergo circumcision or abide Mosaic law. “James” brokered a compromise wherein Gentile converts must avoid non-kosher meat and irregular fornication, but they needn’t undergo circumcision.
Armed with a letter confirming the Conference decision, Paul returned to Antioch with Peter (Simeon). This sets the stage for Paul’s berating Peter for hypocritically doing what many Jews did; most unabashedly Paul. When in Judea they were holier-than-thou observant. Away from Judea they frolicked with Gentiles and poohpoohed Mosaic strictures. (57) (Paul bragged about his chameleon-like conduct. He was “all things to all men.”) (58)
Perjurer Paul
Bentham calls Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem (circa 60) his “invasion visit.” Paul clearly intended to scrap the partition agreement and preach to Jews (something he’d been secretly doing all along). Twice en route Paul is warned Jerusalemites will surely destroy him. Bentham logs this as evidence of how widely Paul was deemed a rogue.
(Several verses steer the reader toward the conclusion that Paul planned this trip as a springboard to Rome. The plot doesn’t support this. Paul was rescued from a homicidal mob seconds before his demise. This and other unplannable events point to a more likely scenario; i.e., as with his Damascus fiasco, Paul woefully miscalculated how hated, and disbelieved, he was.)
In Jerusalem, Paul kept a low profile, staying at the house of another wealthy Cypriot. When he met “James, and all the Elders,” Peter was the lone “apostle” present. Paul boasted of his achievements among Gentiles but was cut short by elders who alleged Paul:
Paul denied this. What his accusers didn’t have before them, that we do, are Paul’s letters. These prove Paul’s guilt beyond doubt. Bentham has Paul writing: “against Mosaic law with all his might” adding:
Paul argued that adherence to Mosaic law would not get you into heaven. He claimed circumcision was irrelevant and that no food was inherently unclean. Paul criticized Moses, called for “making void the law through faith,” and questioned prejudices regarding the sabbath. (61)
During Paul’s first trip back to Jerusalem “Grecian Jews” conspired to slay him. During his final trip “Asian Jews” roiled the mob. (“Asia” is now western Turkey.) These Jews frequented Paul’s missionary stomping ground. They knew what Paul had been doing and saying, and many no doubt had been defrauded by him. In Jerusalem they were joined by the victims, and families of victims, of Paul’s earlier persecutions.
The ubiquitous elders told Paul that to clear his name he must accompany four men to the Temple to endure Nazarite purification rituals. (62) Paul had to pay the priestly fees (bribes) for all four and himself. Fees for one ritual: three lambs ready for roasting, one breeding ram and one breeding ewe, plus one basket each of bread, eggs, and cakes, and beverages. Paul paid five times this amount. (63) A priestly feast steamed in the offing.
This Nazarite ritual is a seven day affair beginning with a shaving of heads. Inductees submit themselves to the custody of a priest who runs them through ordeals. This ritual would purify Paul, cleanse him of guilt, clear him of all charges. By attaching this religious oath to his denials Paul intended: “to commit, in that extraordinary solemn and deliberate form and manner, an act of perjury.” (64)
On the seventh day of the Nazarite ritual, just before its completion, Jerusalemites incensed by Paul’s impending exoneration, stormed the temple and dragged him out to stone him. No Jew defended Paul.
Seconds from death, Paul was rescued by a Roman Captain. Paul howled about his Roman citizenship, then lied to the Captain, claiming the mob assailed him solely because he was a Pharisee. The Captain escorted Paul to safety. (65)
At trial before Roman Procurator Felix, Paul was accused of “sedition,” and of being a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” (66) The latter charge, touched-up as “ringleader of a sect of Nazarites,” would have been well-grounded. The sedition charge related to Paul’s provocative counselling of Jews to forsake Mosaic law – also well-grounded.
Paul told Felix that he was an orthodox Pharisee humbling bringing alms to his nation – double perjury. Paul wasn’t orthodox anything, and he came to conquer.
Paul claimed Jews wanted to kill him for preaching: “repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance” – double perjury. This isn’t why they wanted to kill him, and Paul’s doctrine devalues works in favor of faith.
Bentham quotes Paul:
Bentham adds:
At Paul’s next court date, before Procurator Festus (who replaced Felix in 60), Paul pre-empted proceedings by declaring an intention to use his rights as a Roman citizen to appeal to Caesar. Festus replied: “unto Caesar thou shalt go.” (69)
Jewish sub-king Agrippa II and his sister/wife Bernice, doubted Paul had done anything wrong, and in any event, thought it inappropriate to send him to Caesar without formal charges. They approached Festus on Paul’s behalf. Festus recalled the defendant as:
At the subsequent re-trial, Paul stressed that the accusation against him was being a Pharisee – perjury. Agrippa to Festus:
“…this man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.” (71)
It wasn’t so much that Paul wanted to see Rome, as that he needed to flee Jerusalem. He got his wish; and, when Felix heard of a plot to kill Paul he placed him under the protection of a Centurion. They boarded a ship for Rome whereupon arrival, Acts ends.
Conclusion
They say religions are like sausages. If you knew how they were made, you wouldn’t ingest them.
Several Pauline cells, notably along the southern Black Sea coast, survived Paul’s death. In the early 100s they merged with the Jesus Movement – initially a diffuse literary fan-club. The offspring, Marcionism, circulated a bible consisting of the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s letters. Acts – derived from Paul’s letters and authored by Luke – soon accompanied the Marcion canon. Today, this revised Marcion Bible can be found swaddled inside our New Testament where it occupies 55% of the text!
Marcionites knew Jesus wasn’t a real person. Their skepticism, however, got squeezed out as heretical. The enduring church adopted more Jesus-oriented scripture then, by the early 300s, became state religions along the southeastern Black Sea coast. In 380 this religion was declared the “Universal” (in Latin: “Catholic”) state church for the entire Roman Empire. In the 390s Church Fathers and Bishops selected, edited and re-assembled these sacred scriptures into our New Testament. Bentham exclaims: “Behold the power of the bookbinder!”
During the 300s and 400s Church elites thrice condensed Catholicism down to one-page Creeds (Nicene, Apostles’ and Athanasian). Platonist-Pauline concepts saturate these Creeds. Christianity is Paulism.
None knew the legal limits of religious criticism better than Bentham. Much of his critique of Paul could be applied to Jesus, but Bentham never went there. We suffer no such constraints. Mythicists over-focus on Jesus. Not Jesus but Paul founded Christianity. Mythicists should muster the courage of their convictions and, while grasping the fictitiousness of Jesus as a given, plough-up Paulism. Thereunder useful truths shall be unearthed.
Footnotes
1. J.J. Crandall, author of the preface to the most available edition, claims the first publication appeared in 1825 under the name, Conyers Middleton. Google AI prefers 1823 under Gamaliel Smith. Suffice it to say, Bentham published the work pseudonymously circa 1824.
2. Bentham, Jeremy. Not Paul But Jesus, Zinc Read, Acheson, AB, Canada, 2024. These passages are from Crandall’s preface, pages x-xiii.
3. Acts 20:35
4. These are: a) a re-telling of the last supper (1 Corinthians 11:24-33) copying Luke; and, b) a bizarre resurrection tale (1 Corinthians 15:6) wherein Paul, quoting as of yet unwritten “Scriptures,” claims the resurrected Jesus was seen by 500 witnesses – to which no known scripture attests.
5. Bentham, pages 136 & 334.
6. Acts 19:5-6
7. Galatians 1:1
8. Galatians 1:16
9. Galatians: 1:11
10. 2 Corinthians 11:23-29
11. Bentham, p 198.
12. Romans 15:24-26, 1 Cor 16:1-4, 2 Cor 8:9
13. In 1 Corinthians 16:3-4 Paul does float the idea of congregants taking the money to Jerusalem themselves; however, he adds they would need a letter from him, for unstated reasons, in order to give these funds to head office. He then pulls back this suggestion and recommends him personally taking the money. His main concern is ensuring the money be waiting for him when he arrives in Corinth. There is no indication said funds made it to Jerusalem.
14. 2 Corinthians 11:8-10
15. Philippians 4:18-19
16. Acts 14:8-11 and Acts 28:7-10
17. Acts 19:11-12
18. Acts 20:9-12
19. Acts 28:1-6
20. Acts 13:6-12
21. Acts 16:16-18
22. Acts 19:13-20. (King James Version)
23. Acts 19:19-20
24. Acts 27:20-25
25. Acts 16:20-24
26. Acts 26:18
27. 2 Thessalonians 2:2-12
28. Bentham. p. 408.
29. Ibid. p. 38.
30. Ibid. p. 282.
31. Ibid. p. 93-4; 1 Corinthians 16
32. Bentham. P. 213.
33. Scholars volley a range of opinions as to when Acts was first written. The early 100s seems most probable.
34. 1 Corinthians 14:8
35. Galatians 1:16
36. Bentham. p. 32.
37. Acts 9
38. Acts 22
39. Acts 26
40. Acts 9:10-18 and Acts 22:12-16
41. Bentham. p. 103.
42. Ibid. p. 50.
43. Ibid. p. 96.
44. Ibid. p. 66.
45. References to Paul’s possession of letters (arrest warrants) signed by Chief Priests, High Priests and/or Elders are found in: Acts 9:19, Acts 23:3-11, Acts 26:9-20, Acts 9:13, and Acts 22:5. The letters evince Paul’s intimate connections to Jerusalem high society. An itinerant tentmaker Paul certainly wasn’t.
46. Bentham. p. 127.
47. Ibid. p.96.
48. Acts 9:19-30
49. 2 Corinthians 11:32-33
50. Acts 26:19-21
51. Galatians 1:17-18
52. Galatians 2:9
53. Bentham. p. 175.
54. Acts 22:17-21
55. Bentham. p. 200.
56. Acts 15:5
57. Galatians 2:11-14
58. 1 Corinthians 19:23
59. Acts 21:21
60. Bentham. p. 225.
61. Paul challenges Mosaic Law in Galatians 2:16, 1 Corinthians 7:18, 2 Corinthians 3:12-17, Romans 2:25-29, Romans 3:1-2 Romans 3:20, Romans 3:27-31, Romans 14:2-5 and Romans 15:14.
62. Acts 21:23-24
63. Bentham. p. 302-3.
64. Ibid. p. 300-2.
65. Acts 22:22-29
66. Acts 24:5-6
67. Bentham. p. 397.
68. Ibid. p. 403.
69. Acts 25:12
70. Acts 25:24
71. Acts 26:32
JEREMY Bentham was born in 1748 unto a line of London lawyers. His father amassed a fortune flipping real estate. England’s youngest university grad at 18, Jeremy joined the Bar at 24.
His inheritance excusing him from practicing, Bentham wrote legal texts which were well-received in America and France. Jefferson praised Bentham. The French awarded Bentham citizenship and assembled his manuscripts into a comprehensive, readily adopted, national legal code. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Virginia borrowed from this code. Bentham’s five-volume Rationale for Judicial Evidence earned marquis shelf-space in judges’ chambers and lawyers’ libraries across French and English speaking worlds.
George III disliked Bentham thus thwarted his substantial efforts toward prison reform. Bentham’s overarching goal was a society based upon the principle of “the greatest good to the greatest number, and subordinate the whole to rational calculations of utility.” He championed republicanism and universal suffrage. He never joined the Radicals but supported them.
Bentham published Not Paul But Jesus in 1823 or 1825. (1) Fearing prosecution for heresy, or for denouncing the Church Creed, Bentham published under the name Gamaliel Smith or Conyers Middleton – the latter, a Cambridge Divine twice convicted of heresy. (Middleton’s 1729 Letter from Rome scandalously rooted Christianity into pagan idolatry.) As for the 1820s politico-religious context:
“There had developed two distinct parties in England: The Radicals and Imperialists. The Radicals contended that the foundation of Legislation was that utility which produced the greatest happiness to the greatest number. Blackstone and the Ecclesiastics had adopted the theory of Locke, that the foundation of Legislation was a kind of covenant of mankind to conform to the laws of God and Nature, as interpreted by hereditarily self-constituted rulers… The Church establishment by way of the Lords and Bishops and Lord Bishops was the real foundation of Crown rule and all its ramifications. This superstructure was protected by all forms of penal laws against “lease” Majesty and even the appearance of Church Creed heresy. The Radicals, always confronted by Crown detectives, were compelled to be very wary in their attacks upon this that they called imperial idolatry and were compelled to move by indirect and flank attacks… in the presence of criminal inquisitions too barbarous to mention, the Radicals were handicapped and were compelled to work strategically and by pits and mines beneath the superstructure of Church imperialism.” (2)
Not Paul But Jesus tread a trepidly trod Anglican trail. Bishop Gastrell’s The Christian Institutes (1707) espied two New Testament religions: one from Jesus, one from Paul. While some compatriots assailed the entire Christian edifice, Bentham mined its conspicuous scriptural weakness: Paulism.
Apostle Paul or Imposter Paul?
“Apostle” means someone sent on a mission – an envoy. To Christians, apostles are the twelve disciples of Jesus who witnessed the resurrection and received instructions on that day.
The title of Paul’s bio, Acts of the Apostles, misleads. The only apostle in Acts playing more than a cameo role is Peter. In Acts’ crucial latter half, where Peter interacts with Paul, Peter is a disguised and secondary character. Paul also shakes hands with “James, the brother of Jesus,” another stand-in character. Moreover, this James wasn’t one of The Twelve, nor even a disciple.
To Bentham, Paul was the “anti-apostle.” Paul’s doctrine isn’t the apostles’ doctrine. Paul railed against the apostles. He boasted of not preaching their religion, and of never having been taught by them. He declared superiority over them. Paul’s gospel adds nothing to the teachings of Jesus, and lacks any claim to be considered part of the religion of Jesus. The single Jesus “quote” in Acts isn’t from Jesus. (3) (Paul’s two anecdotes about Jesus are obvious interpolations.) (4)
When Paul and his partner-in-crime, Barnabas, conversed with “apostles” they avoided doctrinal debate; preferring to laud their success in converting Gentiles and to praise Paul’s passionate performances. They broached the circumcision issue only when it impeded Gentile recruitment. Shortly after this discussion Paul publically excoriated the senior apostle, …in the name of Jesus. With what standing could Paul possibly argue doctrine with brethren of a sect predicated on Jesus’ sermons when Paul, alone among them, had never heard these sermons? Such a farce never played.
When Bentham calls Paul an “imposter” he isn’t tossing casual slurs. (5) Paul was an imposter. Paul began preaching his newfound religion immediately after his alleged conversion without approval from that religion’s leaders. Paul travelled the land as a self-appointed apostle from a church he never even joined let alone received instructions from. He performed baptisms, exorcisms, and faith healings in the name of this religion. He collected money in the name of this religion’s charity. Paul lacked the authorization he presented himself as possessing. If Paul was a minister of this church “so then are all the imposters who they falsely pretend to be.”
Paul claimed the power to transmit the Holy Ghost through baptism. (6) Bentham asks: “who gave Paul this power?” Paul claimed his ministry came direct from God (7). He “conferred not with flesh and blood.” (8) He boasted:
“…the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation…” (9)
In no Bible verse do any of The Twelve ordain Paul. In no verse does any apostle acknowledge the veracity of Paul’s conversion. During his Jerusalem junkets, Paul darted about furtively, fearing members of the church he claimed to represent. On the road, Paul avoided regions where brethren lived. He preached in Damascus for a few days, courtesy a sheaf of arrest warrants and a team of bodyguards. He then targeted settlements where few Jews lived. He dared not preach in Jerusalem.
Paul recounts the whippings and beatings he suffered along the way. (10) After noting the punishments aren’t humanly endurable, Bentham points out that whenever Paul plied his schtick in a city hosting an organized Jewish population, he provoked violence. Bentham adds that philosophical discussions, even about God, seldom generate violence. (11) Paul was a fake priest who charged fees for services. Paul solicited coins for Jerusalem’s poor and put those coins into his purse. This bought you a beatdown back in the day. Bentham repeatedly accuses Paul of “obtaining money on false pretenses.”
One condition of the confidential “partition agreement” Paul entered into with Jerusalem’s High Priests, was that Paul would “remember the poor” – i.e., during his travels he would solicit donations for indigent brethren in Jerusalem. Paul aggressively collected donations for “the poor saints of Jerusalem” …and he lived on those donations. (12)
How much did Paul remit? Evidence is scant and the timeline confused. Paul mentions a quick money-drop in Jerusalem occurring 6 years after his first return visit, yet several years later he claims to have avoided Jerusalem for 14 years. In any event, after said money-drop (if not before), Paul stopped remitting donations but continued fundraising in: Corinth, Macedonia, Achaia, Ephesus, then back to Macedonia, then to Greece etc.; often staying a year or more at each location. Remitting donations required carrying coins to Jerusalem, with bodyguard. Paul never did this. He eschewed Jerusalem. He embezzled. (13)
Paul setup cult cells around the northeast Mediterranean (under the purloined name of his self-adopted church). He was running a business – a fraudulent one – but a business none the less. Listen to Paul whine about a promising franchise losing money due to half-assed staff performance:
“Was it a sin for me to lower myself to elevate you to the Gospel of God free of charge? I robbed other Churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you; and when I was present with you I was in want, I was not a burden on any man; for the brethren, when the came from Macedonia supplied my measure of want…” (14)
He subsidizes his Corinthian branch with donations collected by other congregations while covering his own expenses with donations collected in Macedonia. In Philippians he assures his flock that gifts to Paul are really gifts to God. (15)
Paul’s Miracles
Bentham smirks that Paul’s “miracles” offer scant evidence of divine commission. In fact, Paul’s “miracles” are so bogus they bolster his historicity, albeit in a backhanded way.
First, there are the cliché faith healings – one of a Cypriot notable who recovered from some unknown ailment after Paul’s intervention; and the other of a cripple Paul blessed with mobility. Bentham presumes the latter was a staged con-job deploying a fake invalid. (16) Paul’s later use of his dirty laundry to dispel diseases was at least original. (17)
Paul’s ‘bring-the-dead-to-life’ miracle occurred during a sermon he gave in a house-church. It must have been a snoozer because a youth seated on a rafter fell asleep and fell off. He lay unconscious for a moment before Paul brought him back to life. (18)
Paul himself defied death. Sitting by a campfire he was bitten by some small animal. He shook it off and miraculously survived. Bentham speculates the critter was probably a common leech. (19)
Then there’s the Harry Potter stuff. Paul confronted a Sorcerer, called him “child of Satan,” and shazammed him blind with a curse. (20) Paul also used his exorcism skillset to silence a Divineress. (21) Finally, a demon claiming to know Paul stripped and tortured a rival exorcist and his seven-man crew (who were somehow both vagabonds and sons of a High Priest). (22) This also demon touched-off of an impossibly large and “miraculous” book-burning!? (23)
Paul was comforted by an angel during a storm, and cheered-up by God while in jail. (24) Bentham notes that in most of Paul’s supernatural episodes, Paul is oddly passive; such as when an earthquake freed him from jail. (25)
Paul’s Gospel
Bentham bemoans how Paul’s gospel “lacks appreciable objective quantities.” Asked by Agrippa II to explain what his religion could do for people, Paul responds:
“…open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God… (and) receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them that is sanctified by faith that is in me.” (26)
Bentham dismisses this as “nothingness;” a vague description of a reward system. Vacuousness aside, Paulism does possess key distinguishing features.
Firstly, biblical deployment of Platonist ideas like: Holy Ghost, Immortal Soul, and Divine Judgment in the Afterlife etc., concentrate in Pauline literature. The Old Testament is almost devoid of such concepts.
Secondly, Nazareth appears nowhere in the Old Testament. The New Testament mentions Nazareth twelve times, the demonym “Nazarene” four times, and “Nazorean” thirteen times. Spellings varied. Said references are mostly in Pauline literature.
(To takeover the Jesus Movement, in the early second century, Paulists transformed their canon by deleting “Nazarite” – the religion Paul actually attached himself to – and by littering the text with variations of Nazareth, Nazarene and Nazorean. Changing Jesus’s birthplace to Nazareth turned Jesus and company into “Naz-somethings.” This trick inked over pre-existing references to Nazarites. This is where the bodies are buried.)
(Only a smattering of the thousands of Biblical characters are identified by birthplace. This was usually done to distinguish the character from others with the same name, which wouldn’t have been necessary for “Saul of Tarsus” (Paul) or “Jesus of Nazareth.” Saul was Jerusalem born and raised. Jesus, the carpenter-messiah, arose in an allegorical short story written around 75. Jesus is a fictitious character who never walked on land let alone water. He was born wherever gospel authors or editors fancied.)
Thirdly, Pauline literature contains one of the rare biblical references to the “Antichrist.” (27) Bentham quips that if anyone was anti-Christ it was Paul. (28)
Fourthly, Paulism’s emphasis on ritualized washing away of sins is notable. Baptisms don’t occur in the Old Testament, but happen dozens of times, albeit not-exclusively, in the Pauline canon. Here’s Bentham on Paul’s baptism:
“…if so it really were, that according to the religion of Jesus, by such a cause, such an effect was on that occasion produced;… that murders… killings of men by persecution carried on, on a religious account – slaughters of Christians by non-Christians – could thus, as in Paul’s case, be divested of all guilt, at any rate of all punishment… if impunity could in deed be thus conferred by the sprinkling of a man with water or dipping him into it, then would it be a matter of serious consideration – not only what is the verity of that religion, but what the usefulness of it...” (29)
Finally, while apocalypticism pervaded first century Judaism, Paul’s insistence that The End was mere years away, seems rare. Bentham presciently recognises how Paul’s hysterical messaging compelled his cult to self-isolate from “impure non-believers,” and to don “helmets of faith” to protect themselves from outside persuasion.
Christian “elders” in the early first century?
At the Jerusalem Conference “apostles and the elders” appear three times. At the Peter-Paul showdown in Antioch “apostles and elders” appear several times. While Bentham notes “elders” and “apostles” form two exclusive groups, he skirts exploring who these shadowy elders might be. (30).
In the proffered narrative, Jesus’ church began in 28 then suffered setbacks in 33. The surviving religion revolved around The Twelve. How could a church, within a few years, acquire supervisory elders? How could anyone be more senior than an apostle? Elders atop the Jesus Movement exist only in Pauline literature. In 35 Paul infiltrated a church old enough to have an institutionalized council of elders presiding over the priesthood. This couldn’t have been the Jesus Movement.
Bentham envisions a church with thousands of members who pooled funds into a commonwealth managed by trustees. This church possessed “a regularly formed system of money-gathering spread out over various countries.” (31) Again, this couldn’t have been the Jesus Movement. When Bentham hints the church in question is Nazarite, he ventures onto thin ice. To publish the truth; that is, Paul never heard the words “Christian” or “Nazareth,” would have guaranteed Bentham’s prosecution.
At the same time, Bentham needed to describe certain facets of this church to support his contention that greed motivated Paul. As this church’s main persecutor Paul surveyed its financial affairs. Bentham contends “the prime object of his (Paul’s) ambition” was capturing the commonwealth fund, and that this goal “never quitted its hold on his concupiscence.” (32)
The Road to Damascus: a muddled ghost story told by a known liar
Paul is the source for all seven biblical accounts of his conversion. In the common telling, Paul’s conversion occurs in 35. Paul’s scribe, Luke, joins Paul in 59 and completes Acts after Paul’s death in 64. (33) Paul’s letters, being first-hand accounts written closer in time to the events described, bear greater evidentiary weight than Acts. These letters don’t even mention the road to Damascus. Here, Paul quickly, evasively describes his conversion as:
“…he (Jesus) appeared to me…” (34)
“(God) called me through his grace to reveal his Son in me…” (35)
The spectacular version of Paul’s conversion suspiciously debuts a quarter century after the alleged event.
Two non-witnesses reference Paul’s conversion. Barnabas claims Paul “had seen the Lord.” Ananias also describes Jesus appearing to Paul. Bentham reminds:
“In no manner or shape did the Lord Jesus, or any other person, make his appearance; - all that did appear was the light…” (36)
As well, Barnabas only knew what Paul told him while Ananias relied on apparitions.
Acts contains three Road-to-Damascus accounts.
First: Paul is knocked down by a light from heaven then a voice tells him to go to Damascus and await further instructions. His companions remain standing. They hear the voice. (37)
Second: Paul is again knocked down by the light and given cursory instructions. His companions, however, do not hear the voice. (38)
Third: Paul and his companions are all knocked down by the light. The voice gives Paul detailed instructions in Hebrew. Whether or not his companions could listen in is omitted. (39)
There are other omissions and contradictions, but the detailed instructions given by the Lord in the third account particularly disrupt the plot. A parallel story is told of a Damascene Jew, Ananias, who received a divine visitation telling him to find Paul and give him his mission. (40) The third account renders Ananias redundant. (Ananias was loved by all Damascene Jews and a leader of an ostracised church – impossible.)
Bentham deems the Ananias detour a hackneyed theatrical contrivance whereby supernatural occurrences gain credence if more than one character reports a similar experience. Bentham takes the same position regarding Paul’s unnamed, undescribed travelling companions. Are they co-travellers or confederates? As no further mention is made of them, Bentham concludes: “He had no such companions.” They were made-up witnesses to the supernatural occurrence. (41)
Add to this conflicted, implausible tale the fact that Paul was almost unanimously disbelieved by his countrymen, and one must then conclude his Road-to-Damascus tale is a fabrication. Bentham opines:
“Yet this account… it is that Christians have thus long persisted in regarding, supporting and acting upon, as if it were from beginning to end, a truth – a great body of truth!... On such evidence would any Judge fine a man a shilling?” (42)
Furthermore, Paul never says why he switched religions. He provides no explanation other than “revelation” – that “mysterious and uninstructive word.” (43)
From this combination of facts it follows that Paul never underwent sincere internal religious change. He feigned conversion and kept attacking the religion he originally set out to destroy.
Damascus and back
Paul transformed: “from authorized blood-stained persecutor of a religion into preacher of that religion.” (44) Paul ran a Pharisee death-squad that abducted and killed religious rivals. In 34 he orchestrated the daylight murder of Stephen – a trustee of the “Christian” (Nazarite) church.
One problem with the plot is Acts 5 has Pharisee High Priest Gamaliel (Paul’s boss) calling for an end to the persecution of the Jesus Movement. Soon after, conversely, Gamaliel and other High Priests dispatch Paul to Damascus with written orders to arrest Jesus followers and haul them back to Jerusalem. (45)
Bentham suggests Gamaliel and Paul conspired to capture the financial resources of a rival church. Paul was supposed to use the threat of arrest to takeover this church’s Damascus operation. (46) Arrest warrants were designed “to place at his (Paul’s) disposal the lot of the Christians of Damascus.” Paul “planned to become a declared convert to the religion for the purpose of setting himself at the head of it.” (47) Gamaliel’s faux peace deal facilitated Paul’s circuitous, surreptitious attack – which failed abysmally.
Within days of Paul’s preaching his newfound religion in Damascus synagogues Damascene Jews “took council to kill him.” (48) They stationed sentries at city gates to prevent his escape. Paul was placed in a basket and lowered from a window in the city wall.
Again we confront discrepancy. In 2 Corinthians it wasn’t Jews hunting Paul:
“In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of Demascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me, and through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.” (49)
A more serious plot defect follows. In Acts Paul’s first destination, upon fleeing Damascus, is Jerusalem:
“I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: - but showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles…” (50)
In Galatians, however, after fleeing Damascus Paul preaches to Gentiles in Arabia for three years. (51)
In both scenarios Paul returns to Jerusalem.
Decoding Paulism
If you were Paul returning to Jerusalem from your harrowing adventure in Damascus (and/or Arabia) upon whose door would you first knock:
A. Gamaliel – the man who sent you on the mission, and who educated you since childhood and employed you ever since; or,
B. Peter – the chief priest of the church whose leaders you’ve been kidnapping and murdering, and whose brethren roundly think you’re a liar.
Hint: the man opening the door welcomes you in and lets you crash on his couch for two weeks.
The answer is obvious, but Pauline literature has Paul showing up unannounced on Peter’s door stoop. The two had never spoken before.
Decoding Pauline literature requires grasping the fact that in the first two Peter-Paul meetings, “Peter” must have been, in the original text, Gamaliel. In the next three Peter-Paul encounters (after Gamaliel’s death) “Peter” is Gamaliel’s son, Simeon. (Acts 15:14 refers to Peter as Simeon.) Paul’s contempt now becomes familiar. Paul and Simeon were both Gamaliel-trained Pharisees, and childhood acquaintances.
If you were Paul returning to Jerusalem from a three-year stint masquerading as a Nazarite priest, and you wished to continue this enterprise, who in Jerusalem need you reconcile your situation with:
A. The Nazarite High Priest; or,
B. The purported brother of the fictitious founder of a religion that does not yet exist.
Where Pauline literature reads “James the brother of Jesus” substitute “Nazarite High Priest.” At their first meeting an obvious, but private, transfer of money from Paul and Barnabas to the two High Priests takes place. Both the Nazarite High Priest and the Pharisee High Priest (Gamaliel) agree that as long as Paul preaches only to distant Gentiles and “remembers the poor,” they won’t intervene. Paul and the Nazarite High Priest shake hands. (52) Elders present were Nazarites.
Paul Disbelieved
Paul’s first three Jerusalem trips came under the protection of Barnabas – a wealthy Cypriot who patronized Jerusalem’s priestly milieu. Without Barnabas’s mediation no reconciliation could have been effected. Acts 9:26-7 delivers a weighty parcel:
“(Paul) assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the Apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord by the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.”
Note how unbelieved Paul was. A dozen additional passages evince near universal distrust. Bentham hammers on this point. If nobody believed Paul then, why believe him now? Bentham expands:
“…what credence can, with reason and propriety, be given to his (Paul’s) evidence, in relation to any important matter of fact?” (53)
Paul’s credibility deficit surfaces again near the end of his first return trip when an angelic Jesus warns:
“Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: because they will not receive of your testimony concerning me…” (54)
“Brethren” were required to escort Paul to Caesarea. Bentham jibes: brethren couldn’t mean Christian brethren for it was from their wrath Paul fled. (55)
Jerusalem Conference
Paul’s second return trip (circa 43) occurs after he and Barnabas scrounged coins in Antioch using a scam prophesy about famine in Jerusalem. They executed a quick money-drop in Jerusalem (which Luke redacts) without conversing with apostles. Their next Jerusalem visit (circa 52) aimed at resolving a dispute which developed in Antioch. Upon arrival in Jerusalem:
“…there arose certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying “it is needful to circumcise them (the new followers) and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.” (56)
Leaving aside why Christians had to assuage a Pharisean sect; Paul and Barnabas attended the Jerusalem Conference to defend their practice of not requiring Gentile converts to undergo circumcision or abide Mosaic law. “James” brokered a compromise wherein Gentile converts must avoid non-kosher meat and irregular fornication, but they needn’t undergo circumcision.
Armed with a letter confirming the Conference decision, Paul returned to Antioch with Peter (Simeon). This sets the stage for Paul’s berating Peter for hypocritically doing what many Jews did; most unabashedly Paul. When in Judea they were holier-than-thou observant. Away from Judea they frolicked with Gentiles and poohpoohed Mosaic strictures. (57) (Paul bragged about his chameleon-like conduct. He was “all things to all men.”) (58)
Perjurer Paul
Bentham calls Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem (circa 60) his “invasion visit.” Paul clearly intended to scrap the partition agreement and preach to Jews (something he’d been secretly doing all along). Twice en route Paul is warned Jerusalemites will surely destroy him. Bentham logs this as evidence of how widely Paul was deemed a rogue.
(Several verses steer the reader toward the conclusion that Paul planned this trip as a springboard to Rome. The plot doesn’t support this. Paul was rescued from a homicidal mob seconds before his demise. This and other unplannable events point to a more likely scenario; i.e., as with his Damascus fiasco, Paul woefully miscalculated how hated, and disbelieved, he was.)
In Jerusalem, Paul kept a low profile, staying at the house of another wealthy Cypriot. When he met “James, and all the Elders,” Peter was the lone “apostle” present. Paul boasted of his achievements among Gentiles but was cut short by elders who alleged Paul:
“…teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after their customs.” (59)
Paul denied this. What his accusers didn’t have before them, that we do, are Paul’s letters. These prove Paul’s guilt beyond doubt. Bentham has Paul writing: “against Mosaic law with all his might” adding:
“No more Jewish rites! No more Mosaic law! Such is the cry that animates the whole body of those writings of his (Paul’s) which have reached us.” (60)
Paul argued that adherence to Mosaic law would not get you into heaven. He claimed circumcision was irrelevant and that no food was inherently unclean. Paul criticized Moses, called for “making void the law through faith,” and questioned prejudices regarding the sabbath. (61)
During Paul’s first trip back to Jerusalem “Grecian Jews” conspired to slay him. During his final trip “Asian Jews” roiled the mob. (“Asia” is now western Turkey.) These Jews frequented Paul’s missionary stomping ground. They knew what Paul had been doing and saying, and many no doubt had been defrauded by him. In Jerusalem they were joined by the victims, and families of victims, of Paul’s earlier persecutions.
The ubiquitous elders told Paul that to clear his name he must accompany four men to the Temple to endure Nazarite purification rituals. (62) Paul had to pay the priestly fees (bribes) for all four and himself. Fees for one ritual: three lambs ready for roasting, one breeding ram and one breeding ewe, plus one basket each of bread, eggs, and cakes, and beverages. Paul paid five times this amount. (63) A priestly feast steamed in the offing.
This Nazarite ritual is a seven day affair beginning with a shaving of heads. Inductees submit themselves to the custody of a priest who runs them through ordeals. This ritual would purify Paul, cleanse him of guilt, clear him of all charges. By attaching this religious oath to his denials Paul intended: “to commit, in that extraordinary solemn and deliberate form and manner, an act of perjury.” (64)
On the seventh day of the Nazarite ritual, just before its completion, Jerusalemites incensed by Paul’s impending exoneration, stormed the temple and dragged him out to stone him. No Jew defended Paul.
Seconds from death, Paul was rescued by a Roman Captain. Paul howled about his Roman citizenship, then lied to the Captain, claiming the mob assailed him solely because he was a Pharisee. The Captain escorted Paul to safety. (65)
At trial before Roman Procurator Felix, Paul was accused of “sedition,” and of being a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” (66) The latter charge, touched-up as “ringleader of a sect of Nazarites,” would have been well-grounded. The sedition charge related to Paul’s provocative counselling of Jews to forsake Mosaic law – also well-grounded.
Paul told Felix that he was an orthodox Pharisee humbling bringing alms to his nation – double perjury. Paul wasn’t orthodox anything, and he came to conquer.
Paul claimed Jews wanted to kill him for preaching: “repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance” – double perjury. This isn’t why they wanted to kill him, and Paul’s doctrine devalues works in favor of faith.
Bentham quotes Paul:
“For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple and went about to kill me.”
Then responds:
“For these causes? For what causes? If for being a Pharisee, or preaching the general resurrection, or even the particular one – assuredly no. But, if for the breech of trust in joining with the state offenders… whom he was commissioned to apprehend… and then bringing out the vision story as an excuse; if telling everyone that would hear him that the law of the land was a dead letter; and, if then denying he had ever done so; and, for giving himself the benefit of such mendacious denial, rendering the temple an instrument of notorious perjury…” (67)
Bentham adds:
“to that of the whole population of Jerusalem, he (Paul) was a depraved character, marked by the stain – not merely of habitual insincerity, but of perjury in its most aggravated form.” (68)
At Paul’s next court date, before Procurator Festus (who replaced Felix in 60), Paul pre-empted proceedings by declaring an intention to use his rights as a Roman citizen to appeal to Caesar. Festus replied: “unto Caesar thou shalt go.” (69)
Jewish sub-king Agrippa II and his sister/wife Bernice, doubted Paul had done anything wrong, and in any event, thought it inappropriate to send him to Caesar without formal charges. They approached Festus on Paul’s behalf. Festus recalled the defendant as:
“…this man about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem and also here (Caesarea), crying that he ought not to live…” (70)
At the subsequent re-trial, Paul stressed that the accusation against him was being a Pharisee – perjury. Agrippa to Festus:
“…this man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.” (71)
It wasn’t so much that Paul wanted to see Rome, as that he needed to flee Jerusalem. He got his wish; and, when Felix heard of a plot to kill Paul he placed him under the protection of a Centurion. They boarded a ship for Rome whereupon arrival, Acts ends.
Conclusion
They say religions are like sausages. If you knew how they were made, you wouldn’t ingest them.
Several Pauline cells, notably along the southern Black Sea coast, survived Paul’s death. In the early 100s they merged with the Jesus Movement – initially a diffuse literary fan-club. The offspring, Marcionism, circulated a bible consisting of the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s letters. Acts – derived from Paul’s letters and authored by Luke – soon accompanied the Marcion canon. Today, this revised Marcion Bible can be found swaddled inside our New Testament where it occupies 55% of the text!
Marcionites knew Jesus wasn’t a real person. Their skepticism, however, got squeezed out as heretical. The enduring church adopted more Jesus-oriented scripture then, by the early 300s, became state religions along the southeastern Black Sea coast. In 380 this religion was declared the “Universal” (in Latin: “Catholic”) state church for the entire Roman Empire. In the 390s Church Fathers and Bishops selected, edited and re-assembled these sacred scriptures into our New Testament. Bentham exclaims: “Behold the power of the bookbinder!”
During the 300s and 400s Church elites thrice condensed Catholicism down to one-page Creeds (Nicene, Apostles’ and Athanasian). Platonist-Pauline concepts saturate these Creeds. Christianity is Paulism.
None knew the legal limits of religious criticism better than Bentham. Much of his critique of Paul could be applied to Jesus, but Bentham never went there. We suffer no such constraints. Mythicists over-focus on Jesus. Not Jesus but Paul founded Christianity. Mythicists should muster the courage of their convictions and, while grasping the fictitiousness of Jesus as a given, plough-up Paulism. Thereunder useful truths shall be unearthed.
Footnotes
1. J.J. Crandall, author of the preface to the most available edition, claims the first publication appeared in 1825 under the name, Conyers Middleton. Google AI prefers 1823 under Gamaliel Smith. Suffice it to say, Bentham published the work pseudonymously circa 1824.
2. Bentham, Jeremy. Not Paul But Jesus, Zinc Read, Acheson, AB, Canada, 2024. These passages are from Crandall’s preface, pages x-xiii.
3. Acts 20:35
4. These are: a) a re-telling of the last supper (1 Corinthians 11:24-33) copying Luke; and, b) a bizarre resurrection tale (1 Corinthians 15:6) wherein Paul, quoting as of yet unwritten “Scriptures,” claims the resurrected Jesus was seen by 500 witnesses – to which no known scripture attests.
5. Bentham, pages 136 & 334.
6. Acts 19:5-6
7. Galatians 1:1
8. Galatians 1:16
9. Galatians: 1:11
10. 2 Corinthians 11:23-29
11. Bentham, p 198.
12. Romans 15:24-26, 1 Cor 16:1-4, 2 Cor 8:9
13. In 1 Corinthians 16:3-4 Paul does float the idea of congregants taking the money to Jerusalem themselves; however, he adds they would need a letter from him, for unstated reasons, in order to give these funds to head office. He then pulls back this suggestion and recommends him personally taking the money. His main concern is ensuring the money be waiting for him when he arrives in Corinth. There is no indication said funds made it to Jerusalem.
14. 2 Corinthians 11:8-10
15. Philippians 4:18-19
16. Acts 14:8-11 and Acts 28:7-10
17. Acts 19:11-12
18. Acts 20:9-12
19. Acts 28:1-6
20. Acts 13:6-12
21. Acts 16:16-18
22. Acts 19:13-20. (King James Version)
23. Acts 19:19-20
24. Acts 27:20-25
25. Acts 16:20-24
26. Acts 26:18
27. 2 Thessalonians 2:2-12
28. Bentham. p. 408.
29. Ibid. p. 38.
30. Ibid. p. 282.
31. Ibid. p. 93-4; 1 Corinthians 16
32. Bentham. P. 213.
33. Scholars volley a range of opinions as to when Acts was first written. The early 100s seems most probable.
34. 1 Corinthians 14:8
35. Galatians 1:16
36. Bentham. p. 32.
37. Acts 9
38. Acts 22
39. Acts 26
40. Acts 9:10-18 and Acts 22:12-16
41. Bentham. p. 103.
42. Ibid. p. 50.
43. Ibid. p. 96.
44. Ibid. p. 66.
45. References to Paul’s possession of letters (arrest warrants) signed by Chief Priests, High Priests and/or Elders are found in: Acts 9:19, Acts 23:3-11, Acts 26:9-20, Acts 9:13, and Acts 22:5. The letters evince Paul’s intimate connections to Jerusalem high society. An itinerant tentmaker Paul certainly wasn’t.
46. Bentham. p. 127.
47. Ibid. p.96.
48. Acts 9:19-30
49. 2 Corinthians 11:32-33
50. Acts 26:19-21
51. Galatians 1:17-18
52. Galatians 2:9
53. Bentham. p. 175.
54. Acts 22:17-21
55. Bentham. p. 200.
56. Acts 15:5
57. Galatians 2:11-14
58. 1 Corinthians 19:23
59. Acts 21:21
60. Bentham. p. 225.
61. Paul challenges Mosaic Law in Galatians 2:16, 1 Corinthians 7:18, 2 Corinthians 3:12-17, Romans 2:25-29, Romans 3:1-2 Romans 3:20, Romans 3:27-31, Romans 14:2-5 and Romans 15:14.
62. Acts 21:23-24
63. Bentham. p. 302-3.
64. Ibid. p. 300-2.
65. Acts 22:22-29
66. Acts 24:5-6
67. Bentham. p. 397.
68. Ibid. p. 403.
69. Acts 25:12
70. Acts 25:24
71. Acts 26:32