Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

Loren proposed that Gal 2:1-10 is not = Acts 15, because "if the decision of
Acts 15:19-20 had been reached, why on earth would Paul not have cited
it?". Let's explore this question: Why did Paul not explicitly cite the
decisions of Acts 15:19-20, or make reference to the letter? I would be
interested to hear the views of list members. Meanwhile, here are four
possible answers to that question:

1.
Paul does not cite the decree because it did not deal with the issue in
dispute. The decree implies that gentiles did not need to be circumcised to
be accepted by the believing community. Paul, the apostles, the
influencers, and the Galatians may well have been in agreement on that. The
dispute was over whether Gentiles had to be circumcised to receive the
status of full converts, and the decree is silent on this issue. Paul could
not appeal to the decree: all he could do is explain that the pillars were
well aware of his gospel before they made the decree (2.2), but still did
not demand circumcision (2.3), and that they recognised his right to
interpret the gospel (2.7-9). One gets the impression that Paul and the
apostles did not want to antagonise the conservatives in the Judean church,
and deliberately failed to explain to them that Paul was offering full
proselyte status to uncircumcised gentiles. 

Let us then suppose that Paul's gospel was never fully explained to the
Judean believers (other than the pillars). Then the influencers (who may
have come from Judea) might well have believed that Paul preached

circumcision (for converts), and this could explain 5.10-12. There are
other indications that Paul had been misunderstood and misrepresented by
the influencers (1.8; 5.2; 6:11). That the influencers were ignorant of the
nature of Paul's gospel is shown by the fact that they appear to have
believed that he had received it from the apostles.

2.
Acts 15 is not to be equated with Gal 2, and Galatians was written before
the council of Acts 15. Loren has argued for this position in an off-list
e-mail, which I paste below, with his permission.

Loren wrote;
>I believe that Gal. 2:1-10 relates Paul taking the uncircumcised Titus to
>Jerusalem to deal with the controversy of Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles
>who have widely begun to share indiscriminate eucharist table-fellowship --
>sharing bread and wine from the same vessels, which ran the risk of
>idolatry. They were opposed by a group of non-Christian “false believers”
>(2:4), but the pillars agreed with Paul that Gentiles need not become
>proselytes in order to engage in indiscriminate eucharist-fellowship. Paul
>may not have had the same status as the others (in fact, we may be fairly
>sure he didn’t), but I think he was nonetheless part of the decision-making
>process.
>
>Gal. 2:11-14 shows the immediate results of the pillars’ “radical” decision.
>When a group of non-Christian social control agents came to inspect Antioch
>(with the permission of James), Peter withdrew, fearing their reactions to
>this newly sanctioned blasphemous practice.
>
>Acts 15:1-20 tells of the second Jerusalem meeting which convened precisely
>in order to deal with the fury of non-believers (Gal. 2:12) and
>Christ-believers (Acts 15:5) alike, who found the decision of Gal. 2:7-9 far
>too sacrilegious. These non-believers and Christian hard-liners pushed for
>proselyte conversion, which was in flat opposition to what all apostles
>(James, Peter, John, Paul, etc.) agreed to earlier (Gal. 2:6-9), that is, no
>requirements at all for Gentiles and Jews to intereat (and intermarry?) as a
>single community. Thus, James’ decree of 15:19-20 was, indeed, a
>compromise -- between the earlier position of all apostles and the position
>of the hard-liners both inside and outside the movement.

But the equation Gal 2 with the famine visit has problems of its own:

a) There is the chronological argument. 
b)Furthermore, I find it awkward to place Acts 15.1-2 after the events of
Gal 2.1-10. When the controversy arose in Antioch in Acts 15.1, why didn't
Paul simply state, "I presented my gospel to the apostles in full during
the famine visit, and they had no problem with it then"?. Why was another
visit to Jerusalem necessary, if the question had already been answered on
the earlier visit.
c) It is unlikely that Paul would circumcise Timothy AFTER the controversy
arose in Galatia. He would have been playing into the hands of the
influencers. For me, it is more probable that the controversy arose partly
as a RESULT of the circumcision of Timothy. I see probable references to
the circumcision of Timothy in Gal 5.11 and 2.4-5. 

3.
Everybody agreed that the apostles were against circumcision (for
gentiles), but the Galatians and the influencers had never accepted the
authority of the apostles. I proposed this possibility in my post of 24th
Sept, and suggested that Gal 1.1-2.14 can be read as Paul's assertion that
he had not received his gospel from the apostles, but from God. 

Loren wrote (off-list):
>Richard, if you believe that Gal. 2:6 means that the pillars added no
>Gentile-liberty element (as opposed to no Judaizing element), then I admit
>there is little problem in equating Gal. 2:1-10 with Acts 15:1-20. But
>otherwise it just doesn’t work; Witherington’s point stands.
>
>I find your idea intriguing. It would make sense of Gal. 5:11, where Paul

>rhetorically asks if “he is still preaching circumcision” -- as if people
>believed he and not the pillars had been pushing in that direction. But Mark
>Nanos raised a good point: Paul’s purpose in writing Galatians would be
>almost entirely self-serving. 

I don't think so. This reading does not make Paul's rhetoric self-serving.
No, the issue for Paul is not whether he plagiarized from the apostles or
visa versa. The issue is whether the gospel of gentile liberty carried the
authority of God, or was something made up by a few mere men (whose
authority was dismissed by the influencers and by the influenced).

>Still, I wouldn’t mind seeing more ground
>explored in this direction, and I encourage you to pursue this theory. If
>you want to use this email on C-P, feel free. Hopefully it will elicit more
>discussion.

4. 
Acts 15 = Gal 2, but there are inaccuracies in Acts. This solution is a
last resort, unless one can provide independent evidence for those
particular proposed inaccuracies.


Richard Fellows
Vancouver
rfellows AT intergate.ca