Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

I have recently offered two competing explanations of the historical
background to Galatians, and would like to explore both in more detail. In
this e-mail I will make a case for the suggestion that the influencers did
not realize that Paul was offering full status to uncircumcised gentiles.

I had written:
>> 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. . . 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)...

Loren responded:
>I find it hard to believe that the circumcision
>parties (whether in- or outside the church) would have
>failed to “get the drift” here, especially considering
>the way gossip mills worked in a city like Jerusalem.

I think it is highly probable that ordinary Judean 'Christians' were poorly
informed about Paul's gospel during the time period in question. Paul had
no contact with the region until three years after his conversion. When he
did finally go up to Jerusalem he saw only Peter and James. Importantly, we
are told that he was unknown to the Judean believers (1.22). They heard
only that he was preaching the faith that he had previously persecuted
(1.23), and this means that they were completely unaware of any aspects to
his doctrine of gentile liberty that did not pre-date his conversion. In
the absence of any contact with Paul, they naturally assumed that the
gospel that he preached was identical to that preached by those who were
apostles before him. That is to say, they assumed that he had received his
gospel from the apostles, and this is confirmed by 1.11-12. We are then
told that they glorified God (1.24), and it is unlikely that they would
have done so if they had been aware just how radical his preaching was. At
2.2 he presents his gospel to the leaders and was unsure about how it would
be received. This can only mean that Paul's gospel had not been previously
explained, even to the leaders, and it is quit probable that the ordinary
Judean believers were more or less in the dark about it. The decision to
make it a private meeting was to exclude others who might have stirred up
trouble for Paul if they had known what he was advocating. So, I think
Paul's letter does suggest that the influencers, if they came from Judea,
would have been rather ignorant about Paul's gospel. Indeed, certain
statements (1.18-2.2) may be read as Paul's explanation of why the
influecers were ignorant: in these verses he may be saying, "Don't listen
to what those agitators may be saying about my gospel because they never
had it explained to them".

Turning to Acts, it is significant that Paul does not get involved in the
debate in Acts 15. He keeps a very low profile. In 16.3 we are told that
Timothy was circumcised because the Jews knew that his father was a Greek.
This implies that if they had not known that his father was a Greek, Paul
would not have told them, and there would have been no need to circumcise
him. This means that it was quite OK for Paul to keep secrets in order to
avoid unnecessarily antagonising his conservative fellow Jews. Similarly
21.22 implies that an option of secrecy was considered (but rejected as
impractical). So Acts also presents Paul as being capable of expedient
secrecy.

Such secrecy can give rise to suspicions and rumours, and this is exactly
what we get (see Acts 21.21; 21.29). It is significant that these rumours
concern Paul's policy toward gentiles, and that they occur in Jerusalem.
These are exactly the sorts of incidents that we would expect to arise
after it had been found out that Paul had not been open about his gospel.
It was his expedient secrecy (Gal 2.2) that eventually led to the
suspicions that cost him his life.

Let us suppose that the full disclosure of Paul's gospel took place in a
private meeting with the leaders (Gal 2.2), and that this was followed by a
wider meeting (Acts 15). For Paul and the pillars the decree would then be
understood in the context of the earlier discussion of full proselyte
status without circumcision. The wider church, on the other hand, were
excluded from the earlier discussion, and might well have interpreted the
decree to refer to gentiles, but not to proselytes. In short, the decree
was a political fudge. The apostles assented to Paul's gospel in private,
but did not risk doing so in public.

Loren, thanks for your clear and swift response. I'll try to reply to the
rest of your message tomorrow. There is a lot to consider, and much mental
gymnastics when switching between competing reconstructions!

Richard Fellows
Vancouver
rfellows AT intergate.ca