Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul on John the Baptist.

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Kym Smith" <khs AT picknowl.com.au>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Paul on John the Baptist.
  • Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 20:40:31 -0400


Dear Rick,

<<<Thank you for your response Kym.
I am familiar with the passage you cited. Tell me, do you think the book
of
Acts accurately recounts the actions and words of Paul?>>>

I am happy that it does, though some details may not be mentioned while
others are included (see below).

<<<I seems to me that the material in Acts stands in direct conflict with what
Paul has to say about himself in Galatians. Paul did not teach his
followers
to circumcise nor would he have allowed a companion to be circumcised for
the sake of Jewish believers.>>>

I agree. For the sake of Jewish believers Paul would not have anyone
circumcised, but for the sake of the gospel and to enable Timothy to be
effective in reaching both Jews and Gentiles, Paul had him circumcised.
The Jews of Acts 16:3 were not Christian believers but those Paul was
seeking to reach. This is consistent with 1 Cor 9:22 ‘I have become all
things to all men, that I might by all means save some.’

<<<((RSV Act 21:21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the
Jews
who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to
circumcise their children or observe the customs.))
This is precisely what Paul IS doing in Galatians. So Acts is engaged in
Judaizing the Apostle Paul. It is this very type of false representation
that Paul is arguing against in Galatians asserting that there is no truth
to it whatever.
((Gal.6:12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that
would
compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not
be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For even those who receive
circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to
have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh.))
And so we see, according to Paul himself, he does indeed teach that
circumcision is not necessary ...even undesirable for the gentile
converts.>>>

Acts is not Judaizing Paul. Luke’s record of Paul having Timothy
circumcised is simply showing the apostles freedom. Circumcision
contributed nothing to Timothy’s salvation, but it did give him a freedom
to minister in places he could not without it.

<<<As to the movements of Paul after his conversion:
note the order of the corrections that Paul is making.
Yes I persecuted the church.
Yes I had a divine encounter with God that changed my life
No I did not go straight to Damascus and consult with the disciples there
but rather I went first into the desert.
Yes I did go to Jerusalem but it was three years after my conversion.
I only saw Cephas and James [this refutes Acts assertion that Barnabas was
the first Jerusalem disciple to confer with Paul]>>>

But Paul was referring to the apostles among whom James was included but
not Barnanbas

<<<For the first fourteen years I remained unknown to the other Jerusalem
disciples and apostles.
Because of a revelation I journeyed to Jerusalem and conferred with the
reputed Pillars of the movement.
They saw what wee had accomplished and agreed that we should continue to
minister to gentiles and they to the circumcision. Others tried to force
us
to adhere to circumcision but we did not yield for even one moment.

As you can see, Paul's argument in Galatians follows precisely the order
of
the Acts presentation of Paul's conversion and discipleship. And so I find
it difficult to look at Acts as an accurate reflection of what Paul did or
did not do, knew or did not know.>>>

I am not sure what you mean in this last paragraph unless you meant to say
that Acts and Galatians offer contrary accounts of Paul’s movements rather
than that ‘Galatians follows precisely the order of the Acts’. The latter
would surely confirm the Acts accuracy. Most of my work has been on
reconstructing Paul’s movements following the Acts, but let offer the
following comparison with suggested dates.

Year 32
Gal:. (1:15-17) Jesus converted at Damascus, left for Arabia and returned
to Damascus after three years.
Acts: (9:1-22) Converted in Damascus (no mention of trip to Arabia).
Year 35
Gal: (1:18-20) Paul goes to Jerusalem and spends a couple of weeks with
Peter and James but sees none of the other apostles.
Acts: (9:23-29) ‘When many days had passed’ under threat in Damascus, Paul
escapes to Jerusalem but the apostles (not named but Peter and James =
apostles) are reluctant to receive him. Barnabas (who is not an apostle)
realises Paul has changed and introduces him to the apostles.
Gal: (1:21) Paul returns to Syria and Cilicia.
Acts: (9:30) Paul sent to Tarsus (in Cilicia) only to be fetched from
there by Barnabas (11:25) to minister in Syrian Antioch.
Year 44?
Paul, under Banabas’ leadership, takes aid to church at Jersalem and only
meets with the elders. (11:27-30 - not mentioned in Galatians because Paul
had not initiated it and he met only with the elders).
(13&14) After some time Paul (and Parnabas) is sent on his first
missionary journey into eastern Asia Minor, much of which was in the
province of Cilicia.
Year 49
Gal: (2:1f) Paul goes up (with Barnabas and Titus) ‘by revelation’ to
Jerusalem and confers with those who were of repute, namely Cepahs, James
and John. (the council not mentioned)
Acts: (15:1f) Paul goes (with Barnabas) to the Council of Jerusalem then
returns to Antiioch. (Paul's private meeting with Peter, James and John -
probably before the council [cf. 15:4] - not mentioned).

As you can see, Rick, I find not great tension, only the difference in
what the two needed to stress in their works written in different genres
and for different reasons.

Sincerely,

Ky m Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs AT picknowl.com.au





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page