Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Jerusalem conference

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Jerusalem conference
  • Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 05:21:21 -0700 (PDT)


David Inglis wrote:

>>Sorry Eric, but I don't read Gal 2 as
>>describing a council meeting at all:
>>...

>>"I went there because of a revelation and
>>presented to them the gospel
>>that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so
>>only in a private meeting with the influential
>>people, to make sure that I was not running—or had
>>not run—in vain (Gal 2:2) ... But from those who
>>were influential...those influential leaders
>>added nothing to my message.

Steve Black responded:

>David, it is interesting that you seemed to have
>snipped the portion reading, "what they were makes
>no difference to me", which doesn't
>paint the picture of a Paul saying "Guys, am I doing
>this right?" - rather this is a Paul that seems to be
>saying that he really doesn't give a damn what those
>who are "pillars" before him think.

I want to focus on two issues emerging from this
thread, the question of Gal 2=Acts 15 and Paul's
relationship to the pillars.

That Paul went to Jerusalem "in order to be sure that
he wasn't running in vain" (Gal 2:2) should put to
rest notions that he didn't care what the pillars
thought about the matter. Gal 2:6 -- "From those who
were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they
actualy were makes no difference to me; God shows no
partiality") -- is, I believe, part of the face-saving
rhetoric which runs through Gal 2:1-10. The pillars
had laid down the law to Paul (see below) -- and I'm
not talking about anything like the stipulations laid
down in Acts 15. On this point I agree with David
Inglis: Gal 2:1-10 does not refer to the same event
reported in Acts 15:1-20; it points more to a private
meeting than an official council. I rate the following
in order of likelihood:

1. Gal 2:1-10 refers to a private meeting either
referred to in Acts 11:29-30 or not by Luke at all.
Acts 15:1-20 refers to a later official council, which
addressed additional issues.

2. Gal 2:1-10 refers to a private meeting either
referred to in Acts 11:29-30 or not by Luke at all (as
above). Acts 15:1-20 is either (a) a flatly
unhistorical Lukan creation serving his own narrative
interests, snapshotting material from Leviticus and
offering rules for resident aliens, or (b) an
agreement made much later (after Paul's death?)
between the Jerusalem church and Gentile churches
outside Palestine.

3. Gal 2:1-10 refers essentially to the same event
described in Acts 15:1-20, even if Luke has sanitized
or down-played the controversy.

The problem with option 3 is that it requires
artificial harmonizing, which leaves me cold. Nothing
in Gal 2:1-10 suggests that the stipulations of Acts
15:20 were in view. For that matter (and despite
common opinion), nothing in Gal 2:11-14 suggests this.
As I outlined in an earlier thread, both Philip Esler
and Mark Nanos have convincingly argued that the
Antioch controversy had nothing to do with supposed
unresolved dietary issues, but rather the same issue
addressed in Gal 2:1-10: circumcision (Gal 2:12). If
Acts 15 is historical, it was probably a much later
council, either involving Paul (option 1) or
post-Pauline (option 2b). If option 1, then it may
have been the result of subsequent controversies later
developing/resulting from the liberal decision reached
in Gal 2:1-10.

But in any case, the fact that the decision reached in
Gal 2:1-10 was one for which the pillars presumably
shared Paul's enthusiasm shouldn't blind us to the
likelihood that they disliked and mistrusted him
(albeit for non-theological reasons). After all, he
was a Pharisee; he never knew Jesus; he had persecuted
the Jesus movement. All of this must have had these
fisherfolk on the constant defensive. Nothing
indicates that Paul was ever treated as an equal in
apostolic status. The pillars may have agreed (for the
most part) with his views on the Gentile mission, but
there would always be that insecurity and mistrust
given his background. They "reminded" him who was boss
by strongarming the collection agreement out of him.
Paul says that he was more than eager to take up this
collection (and, of course, he eventually became
fervently committed to the project), but was he really
that eager initially? I doubt it. Paul acknowledges
(as he did to the end; cf Rom 15:31) the undeniable
fact (the authority of the pillars) while constantly
trying to save face and maintain a macho façade --
i.e. his independence with respect to source of his
revelations (Gal 1), saying the collection was "his"
idea as much as theirs, etc.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua, NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page