Galatians 2: parallel with Acts 11, or Acts 15?

[technomage]

In Galatians, Chapter 2, Paul tells the Galatians of how he opposed Peter at Antioch, when Peter would have given way to those Jewish Christians who thought that the Gentiles should become circumcised and adhere to the Mosaic purity laws in order to be Christians. There is a parallel in Acts, but there is some dispute: does this account parallel Acts 10-11, or Acts 15?

Acts 11:
In Acts 10, we hear of a Roman man named Cornelius--a pious man who believes in God, but who has not heard of Jesus. He is told in a vision to send for Peter (who is currently in Joppa). Peter, meanwhile, has the famous vision of the sheet lowered from heaven with all manner of animals on it, where God tells him "What God has made clean, call thou not unclean." Peter goes to Cornelius's house and preaches, and those within are saved, receiving the Holy Spirit. In Acts 11, Peter is criticized by certain Jewish believers, who said "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them." He defends himself, and those present cease their objections. The balance of the chapter is taken up with the founding of the church in Antioch, and how Barnabas was sent to Antioch, then went to fetch Saul from Tarsis.

Acts 15:
Here, again, the issue of circumcision of Gentile believers causes conflict, this time in Antioch. Paul and Barnabas, along with "some other believers," were appointed to go to Jerusalem to discuss the issue with the elders and apostles in Jerusalem. There James decrees that the Gentiles should not be required to be circumcised, and the elders and apostles send a letter to the Gentile believers to that effect.

Galatians 2:
In Galatians, Paul goes from Antioch up to Jerusalem, "in response to a vision," and explains the Gospel that he is preaching to the Gentiles. James, Peter, and John--whom Paul calls "pillars of the church"--add nothing to his gospel, though they do ask that Paul remember the poor, something he's already eager to do. Though the text does not state such, it can be assumed that Paul returns to Antioch.

Now comes the problem. Starting in Gal 2:11, Paul tells of Peter coming to Antioch. Peter, for a while, eats with the Gentiles, but then when men comes--men sent from James (v 12)--he ceases to do so, as do several other Jewish members of the Antiochine church. Paul confronts Peter publically, saying that the Law does not justify.

There are some who would associate the passage in Galatians with the passage in Acts 11, but this does not match the circumstances.

* The "players" don't match: in Acts 11, the person accused of eating with Gentiles is Peter. In Acts 15 and Galatians 2, the main players are Paul and Barnabas (along with "some other believers," usually thought to include Titus).
* The places don't match: in Acts 11, the issue occurred in Caesarea: in Acts 15 and Galatians 2, the event is in Antioch.
* The travel doesn't match: Paul went to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, then fourteen years after that for the council regarding the Gentiles, then when he was arrested. Unless we want to posit yet another trip to Jerusalem (not attested in any other source), we are forced to conclude that the events in Galatians 2 are parallelled in Acts 15, not Acts 11.

Justin

[Jaltus]

There is a lot more to this than what you have listed here, including the question of when Galatians itself was even written (if it was written before Acts 15 occurred, then it really could not be referring to Acts 15, could it?).

Moises Silva discusses this issue at length in his book on exegetical method, which uses Galatians as an example. In it, he posits that most of the major theories misunderstand a lot of different details, but he comes down on the side of Acts 15 and a later date for Galatians. He assumes that Paul does not reference the letter from James because it is being sent with it. Nothing Paul says in his letter to the Galatians is fundamentally opposed to what James has in his letter.

[technomage]

Hi, Jaltus,


There is a lot more to this than what you have listed here, including the question of when Galatians itself was even written (if it was written before Acts 15 occurred, then it really could not be referring to Acts 15, could it?).
I don't know if you've seen the other thread I have going that this one's related to (Christian Canon: Authorship (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46747) in Church History): this is actually a tangential topic.

I have to go for a date after Paul's second visit--probably not long after, and my best guess would be winter 57 or spring 58. If this was a separate incident from Acts 15, that posits an extra trip to Jerusalem, which is not attested. For the reference in Galatians to refer to the same incident that Acts 15 refers to, but for Galatians to have been written first, does not make sense, unless you have Peter bouncing back and forth from Jerusalem to Antioch like a ping-pong ball.


Moises Silva discusses this issue at length in his book on exegetical method, which uses Galatians as an example. In it, he posits that most of the major theories misunderstand a lot of different details, but he comes down on the side of Acts 15 and a later date for Galatians. He assumes that Paul does not reference the letter from James because it is being sent with it. Nothing Paul says in his letter to the Galatians is fundamentally opposed to what James has in his letter.
:yes: I know. Jaltus, the fundamental point of the issue is that I feel one of the two accounts has been "spun"--probably the pseudo-Lucan account in Acts, as it was written much later. However, the bulk of the argument is in the other thread: I invite you to review it and jump into the conversation if your schedule permits.

Justin

[jpholding]

Oh boy, something I've written gobs on! :hehe:


Now comes the problem. Starting in Gal 2:11, Paul tells of Peter coming to Antioch. Peter, for a while, eats with the Gentiles, but then when men comes--men sent from James (v 12)--he ceases to do so, as do several other Jewish members of the Antiochine church. Paul confronts Peter publically, saying that the Law does not justify.

This I take as clear evidence that Gal. 2 occurs BEFORE Acts 15 and after Acts 11, Otherwise Paul would have appealed to the Acts 15 Council's results. But beyond that, the dispute between Paul and Peter has been somewhat misunderstood. The issue at hand was not Law vs Grace, but ritual purity. I'll post an article I wrote on this below; it's small.


* The "players" don't match: in Acts 11, the person accused of eating with Gentiles is Peter. In Acts 15 and Galatians 2, the main players are Paul and Barnabas (along with "some other believers," usually thought to include Titus).

I'm not sure why this is a problem, but that Peter did eat with Gentiles before is consistent with Paul's criticisms of Peter going BACK to not doing so.


* The places don't match: in Acts 11, the issue occurred in Caesarea: in Acts 15 and Galatians 2, the event is in Antioch.

I don't think it's the same event anyway...


* The travel doesn't match: Paul went to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, then fourteen years after that for the council regarding the Gentiles, then when he was arrested. Unless we want to posit yet another trip to Jerusalem (not attested in any other source), we are forced to conclude that the events in Galatians 2 are parallelled in Acts 15, not Acts 11.

I don't see how this obtains....if Galatians was very early, one of these trips had not happened when it was written.

OK, now for my article. :teeth:

********

In ancient societies, purity codes "are a way of talking about what is proper for a certain place and a certain time...Pollution is a label attached to whatever is out of place with regard to the society's view of an orderly and safe world." It involves "drawing the lines that give definition to the world around us..." More than this: Purity in the ancient world "is fundamentally concerned with the ordering of the world and making sense of one's everyday experiences in light of that order, which is usually conceived as being a divine ordering of the cosmos..." Ancient cultures like Israel's "draw extensive lines of purity, of clean and unclean, in an attempt to create a model of God's cosmic order and to help an individual locate his or her place in that order so that the person may know when pollution has been contracted and what needs to be done to dispel it, so that access to the holy God and his benefits will remain open." Breaches of boundaries are "unclean". Hence the person partially leprous is ritually unclean; but the person who is totally covered with leprosy is ritually clean. Breaks in the skin or discharges likewise violate boundaries and are ritually unclean. From the Israelites food laws, something like a lobster which lives in the water, yet has legs, is ritually unclean because it breaks the boundaries between land and sea.

Ancient peoples drew what DeSilva [Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity] calls "purity maps" in which there was a certain understanding of what belonged where, and what did not. The forbidding of Gentiles into the inner court of the Temple is just such an example, of "unauthorized people trespassing into sacred spaces."[251] Some religious movements follow similar lines of thought today, but for the ancients, this was a way of life inside and outside the religious sphere -- though life and religion were also far more interrelated for the ancients as well. Thus DeSilva notes that in the pagan world, for example, "(e)ntrance to sacred shrines required that the visitor obey the purification requirements specific to the shrine." These might vary from one cult to the next and could include abstinence, washing of the body, or wearing of certain clothes or a certain style of hair. In reverse, a mixing of the pure with the impure was "expected to bring disaster for the perpetrators and possibly even their race." [255] Crossing boundaries offended the powers that were.

Of specific concern to us is that in early Judaism, "deeply engraved" [258] purity maps were drawn distinguishing Israelites from non-Israelites (as well as kosher from non-kosher, and sacred times from non-sacred times). In the time of the NT, Jews were accustomed to thinking of Gentiles as beyond the borders of their purity map; the Zealots went as far as using military action to enforce the boundaries. This was far from politically correct, but it was the norm of thinking for the day. In turn, purity maps served a group-identity function, clearly distinguishing one group from another in ways that reinforced the group's internal values. The maps were drawn, and kept, with serious intent.

Christianity involved a serious "redrawing" of the purity maps of Judaism. Those who might think that Paul started the fight don't realize that the battle began in the Gospels. Jesus' association with lepers (regarded as perpetually unclean), the dead (Jairus' daughter and the son of the widow of Nain), the demon possessed (ritually unclean), tax collectors, and sinners (morally unclean), and his statement that "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man," and his denial of the sacred space of the Temple (John 4 and predictions of the Temple's destruction), involve radical redrawings of the Jewish purity maps, parallel to that which Paul advocated in Galatians 2, but which make Paul's angst shrink in comparison.

And now a key point from deSilva: "The Gospels...present Jesus encountering a stream of ritually impure and potentially polluting people, but in the encounter their contagion does not defile Jesus; rather his holiness purges their pollutions, renders them clean and integrates them again into the mainstream of Jewish society where they can reclaim their birthright, as it were, among the people of God...A critical extension of the principle that God's holiness in Jesus was cleansing and sanctifying the unclean is the early church's discovery that Gentiles could be brought into the people of God without first taking on the marks of the ethnic Jew." [284-5] Let us now understand how this applies to the situation of Galatians 2.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.(2:11-12)

The issue of ritual purity is now clear here. Note that Peter is said to have previously eaten with Gentiles. What has now happened is perhaps that "certain [men] from James" witnessed this "violation" of a purity taboo, this crossing by Peter of a boundary separating the holy from the unholy. (Alternatively, the men from James may not have said anything at all, and Peter may have presumed of his own accord that he should change his behavior -- the fact that Paul does not condemn these men, or James, tells us as much.)

But doesn't this signify two differing ideologies? Not at all, as we shall see; it signifies a problem of social boundaries, which was connected to religion, but that was not the primary issue. It is worth noting that this corresponds with the story in Acts 10 of Peter associating with Cornelius. Peter already had been associating with Gentiles in ways that were taboo according to the purity map of Judaism, and had been criticized for it in the past (Acts 10:24-11:18). Note as well that this has nothing to do with matters of faith vs. works or the identity of Christ, as it stands. All that is at issue so far is purity mapping; hence as well it is pointed out by Paul that the Jerusalem church did not demand earlier that Titus be circumcised and thereby placed within the bounds of the purity map.

We will discuss more of why the Jerusalem church was so "into" the old purity map in a moment, but for now, it may be noted, as may be expected, that there could easily be extremists who bolstered their position by claiming that salvation was at stake (Acts 15:1, Gal. 2:4). Witherington [Galatians commentary, 152] notes:

One can understand why Torah-observant Jewish Christians would be especially critical of Peter for this sort of behavior. The Jerusalem church had recognized that God had set him apart for missionary work among Jews, and here he was fraternizing with Gentiles over meals which would cause many of those in his target audience to raise questions about his Jewishness. From the point of view of the Jerusalem church, Peter was being a bad witness, and acting in conflict with the character of his calling.

This agrees with a resolution to a related issue: Is Paul In Galatians 2 contradicting his own advice to "become as a Jew" in 1 Corinthians? No -- Paul is speaking in a missionary context of himself; against Peter he is referring to a gathering of the brethren. There was no need for Peter to "become as a Jew" in Antioch, because he was not acting as a missionary and changing his behavior for the sake of clear communication and understanding, but acting as one who was trying to ingratiate himself with others to avoid consequences. What consequences? Witherington [155] argues that the consequences were associations with Gentiles that would cause reprisals among Zealots who would consider the less nomistic Jewish Christians to be traitors, just as extremist Muslims today would regard more moderate Muslims as perhaps infidels. The Jerusalem church, in order not to be persecuted into the ground, maintained certain Jewish practices for the sake of not being bad neighbors, as Paul would not be when he became as a Jew for the Jews, or what have you. Hence as well in Gal. 6:12 Paul regards avoiding persecution as the motive of the "false brethren."

It should be pointed out that it is most likely that Paul was not in Antioch at the time the "men from James" came to town (that is, even if they were the direct motivators), and that these men were not around when Paul confronted Peter, and were not themselves the false brothers. Otherwise, it is likely that he would have known the names of these men (though keeping them anonymous may be a shaming device), and also confronted them in the assembly, and said or done something before others were led astray. Much of what is described clearly happened while Paul was in absentia. In addition, we see also the reason why Paul has spent as much time as he has in Gal. 1-2 defending his apostleship. To confront Peter was a bold maneuver that would have led Peter to lose face if he did not respond to the challenge, unless Paul was indeed Peter's inferior, and could thereby ignore the challenge. As Malina notes in The New Testament World (39), "only equals can play" this game, and only those recognized as equals can play it. If Peter were Paul's superior, he had the power to ignore and even punish Paul for his impudence. (Paul could also do this if he was Peter's superior, but no one argues for that!) Paul's recounting of his credentials and recognition by the Jerusalem church are not an ego trip, but within the context of an ancient honor-shame society (NOT what we have today!) established his right to confront Peter on equal terms, and established the need for Peter to answer the challenge.

Finally, Paul's word for Peter's method ("withdrew") is a military or tactical term describing a retreat to an inconspicuous sheltered position [Witherington, 154]. If this were as much an issue as the critics suggest, surely Peter's "retreat" would have been much bolder and more defiant.

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.(2:13)

What has happened now is that Peter, the de facto leader of this group, has similarly drawn away others. Under the ancient focus on shame and honor, it became, once Peter stepped back over the line, dishonorable not to follow. Peter and Co. were literally shamed by the group from James (either directly, or by their presence and the assumption of what was expected) into returning to the old purity map, and Peter's actions in turn shamed others into following (including Barnabas, a Levite who would be very sensitive to the apparent need to appear more "law-abiding"). Here again a specific word is important: "dissimulation" means play-acting, or a charade, believing one thing while doing another. The implication again is that Peter, etc. are being inconsistent with their own known position. Indeed, in this light, Paul essentially regards Peter and Barnabas as victims or as careless, not as primarily culpable!

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?(2:14)

Paul's accusation, that Peter and the others did not walk according to the truth of the Gospel, is correct in line with Jesus' own behavior in consistently and defiantly crossing ritual purity lines. Note once again that Paul also notes that Peter "livest after the manner of Gentiles," thus agreeing again with Acts 10-11 that Peter had had previous realization that the purity lines had been redrawn in Christ. (This may also be why Paul does not go after James, even if James and his men were direct motivators: James had never done as Peter did and started living like a Gentile! It is not Torah observation that Paul is against, but inconsistency and hypocrisy! Thus also, perhaps, why the men from James are not attacked, even if they were instigators -- they were not being hypocrites!)

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

It is this verse above all which leads critics to conclude that here we have a split between faith vs. works, and behind it, Christ as divine vs. Christ as normal guy. But the matter is far simpler. In light of the purity maps, Paul is now making the point that the previous criteria for being within the bounds of the purity map are now gone; the bounds have been redrawn by Christ, and therefore, to behave as Peter did is in effect to deny that "God's order had been breached in the cross of Jesus." Faith and works as Christian ways are not in the least at issue here, much less the identity of Christ. What is at issue is purity, and the criteria by which others are deemed pure. The implication of the Galatians influencers (see Nanos review linked above) was that purity and membership in God's kingdom was not achieved except by following the old map -- which is why Paul does go on to stress that if that is so, then logically, one must also follow the entire map (5:3), not just part of it.

The implication was that Christ had not purified the Gentiles and redrawn the map, and in turn, implied that Christ's atoning death was ineffectual. Note that there is no indication at all that Peter "worked it through" and would have denied Christ's atoning death (though by Nanos' view, the influencers never were concerned with it in the first place). If that had happened, not sitting with Gentiles would have been the least of things to worry about. Paul's message to Peter was, "If you do A, then B -- do you realize that?" The influencers were concerned with the surface matter of ingroup signs of membership, and in Jerusalem, probably the pressure of persecution, and a missionary effort, to Jews still under the law -- not with the deeper implications of what they were demanding. At the same time, the idea of the body of Christ having separate members was itself a form of defilement, of separating that which was whole! It really was case of someone "robbing Paul to pay Peter"!

Indications are, from Acts and the rest of the NT, that some in Jerusalem did realize the implications of what they demanded, and the result of that is the conference of Acts 15. (It should be noted that the understanding of Gal. 2 is very much interlinked with how it is placed in terms of a chronology with Acts. As we note here, the timing is much better suited if we place Galatians early, and Galatians 2 between Acts 11 and 15. Placing Gal. 2 after Acts 15 is a keystone in any thesis wishing to emphasize the "fight" between Peter and Paul.) Jesus' denial in John 4 that the Temple at Jerusalem was not the sacred space, but that personal worship was the way to go, is echoed in Paul's reference to the body as sacred space (1 Cor. 3:16-17) which could be polluted, and in Peter and John's recognition that the believer had been made holy in Christ (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:2-3) and who should abstain from polluting behavior (as is clear in all the writings of the NT, including Paul's). Paul in later letters apparently has no problem in relating to the Jerusalem church, as he takes up a collection for them (1 Cor. 9:5-6, 2 Cor. 8-9, Rom. 15:22ff, Col. 4:10 -- critics are reduced to suggesting, as Hyam Maccoby does, that this collection was intended as a bribe to the Jerusalem church to accept Paul, or a way of him buying Roman citizenship, which does no more than change the thesis in light of the facts). Of course this is not to say that some in Jerusalem did not stick by their guns; indeed, we would expect that some would try to strengthen their view by making salvation dependent on nomism, and we may well see the roots of the Ebionite movement in such persons. But it is clear that they were the ultimate losers in the debate, that James was not even by Paul's reckoning guilty of following them, and clear as well that to see such an enormous rift and upon so many issues as the critics suppose is a wish fathering a thought.

[technomage]

Hi, JP,

Just a quick reply ... I haven't read all the way through your response yet, but I wanted to get this out before the hands go completely on strike. :hehe:


This I take as clear evidence that Gal. 2 occurs BEFORE Acts 15 and after Acts 11,
OK, that's the distinction. OBP was under the impression that you were conflating Gal 2 and Acts 11, but I couldn't find the article he was talking about. (Finding a specific article on your site is not always the easiest thing to do. :wink:) However, in googling for your article, I found several other articles that argued for Acts 11 == Gal 2, so that's the general topic I was responding to.

Thanks!

Justin

[technomage]

Indications are, from Acts and the rest of the NT, that some in Jerusalem did realize the implications of what they demanded, and the result of that is the conference of Acts 15. (It should be noted that the understanding of Gal. 2 is very much interlinked with how it is placed in terms of a chronology with Acts. As we note here, the timing is much better suited if we place Galatians early, and Galatians 2 between Acts 11 and 15.
JP, that presents some real difficulties with the chronological nature of Galatians 1:10 through 2:21. Even if we look solely at Galatians, the confrontation (2:11-21) is after the trip to Jerusalem (2:1-10).

[jpholding]

JP, that presents some real difficulties with the chronological nature of Galatians 1:10 through 2:21. Even if we look solely at Galatians, the confrontation (2:11-21) is after the trip to Jerusalem (2:1-10).

That's fine for me...why should this be a problem? :smile:

[technomage]

If we have the confrontation after the trip to Jerusalem, then we have an ineffectual council, and the letter written of in Acts 15 comes into question. Remember, according to Acts 15, Peter was at the council, and indeed spoke up for the fact that Gentile Christians were not under the Law. Yet if we posit Gal 2:1-10 (the Council in Jerusalem) as happening before Gal 2:11-21 (Confrontation of Peter), we have an issue that should have already been settled--twice--coming up a third time.

JP, if you take all this combined with the ECF constant writing against "Judaizers," it makes a real indication that there were already a schism in Christianity between those Jewish Christians who held to the works of the Law, and those Christians (I call them "Pauline Christians") who held to "Grace Alone." As I said in the other thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46747), it is possible that the book of James, Jude, and II Peter (which I feel is pseudepigraphic) come from a part of the Christian community that leaned more toward the Judaic side, while much of the Pauline corpus (both genuine and pseudepigraphic) comes from the "Grace Alone" side.

(As a side note, we also have a Peter that flip-flops as badly as Kerry--but if you remember the scene on the lake, for ol' Pete, it wouldn't be the first time. :wink: Seriously, though, while such a scene would put real starch into the argument that even the Apostles were not perfect--they were still fallable, frail humans--the idea of Peter-as-played-by-Kerry is not central to the discussion at hand: please pardon the digression.)

There is, however, one additional issue. I quite agree that the concept of ritual purity was central to Judaism, but it is obvious by Paul's chiding of Peter that the concept of "ritual purity" is not the concept under question. It should have already been established in Peter's mind (cf Acts 11 and Acts 15) that ritual purity was not a salvic issue: Paul never argues against Peter in the context of ritual purity, but only in the context of salvation. Now, I know that your article conflates the two (with the Christian community having a radically different "purity map" than Judaism) ... I'm just not convinced that the conclusion is justified.

Justin

[One Bad Pig]

:bump:

[jpholding]

I must have missed this, sorry! :sad:


If we have the confrontation after the trip to Jerusalem, then we have an ineffectual council, and the letter written of in Acts 15 comes into question. Remember, according to Acts 15, Peter was at the council, and indeed spoke up for the fact that Gentile Christians were not under the Law. Yet if we posit Gal 2:1-10 (the Council in Jerusalem) as happening before Gal 2:11-21 (Confrontation of Peter), we have an issue that should have already been settled--twice--coming up a third time.

? -- but my position is that the council was not yet held when Galatians was written...


JP, if you take all this combined with the ECF constant writing against "Judaizers," it makes a real indication that there were already a schism in Christianity between those Jewish Christians who held to the works of the Law, and those Christians (I call them "Pauline Christians") who held to "Grace Alone."

Well, again, I find in Gal. 2 the roots of what would become that larger complex; I even see the beginnings of the Ebionites in those who "lost" in Acts 15.



(As a side note, we also have a Peter that flip-flops as badly as Kerry--but if you remember the scene on the lake, for ol' Pete, it wouldn't be the first time.

Oh yes, we do agree on that. :smile:



There is, however, one additional issue. I quite agree that the concept of ritual purity was central to Judaism, but it is obvious by Paul's chiding of Peter that the concept of "ritual purity" is not the concept under question. It should have already been established in Peter's mind (cf Acts 11 and Acts 15) that ritual purity was not a salvic issue: Paul never argues against Peter in the context of ritual purity, but only in the context of salvation.

Yes, because as I noted, what Peter did because of ritual purity had clear implications for salvation -- though I don't think Peter realized it. At the same time, it is clearly not a "works vs faith" issue (which the Jews did not see as dichotomous anyway).

JP

[technomage]

? -- but my position is that the council was not yet held when Galatians was written...
Checking the thread ... OK, I see the problem. What you are objecting to is only one part of my argument, but I didn't state the other part as clearly.

There are three possibilities here:
1: Gal 2 is before Acts 15. (What you argue for)
2: Gal 2 is after Acts 15.
3: Gal 2 parallels Acts 15.

If Gal 2 is before Acts 15, then you have Paul shuttling back and forth between Antioch and Jerusalem, in a trip that no other source attests. Additionally, you have a meeting between Paul and the "Pillars of the Church" where Paul is clearly told to go to the Gentiles, yet when one of those self-same Pillars comes to Antioch, he eats for a while with the Gentiles, but then--when the messengers from James comes--ceases doing so. Admittedly, Peter could be pretty thick from time to time ... but would James have not taken steps to avoid trouble in the Antioch Church by telling the messengers "Hey, the church in Antioch has a lot of Gentiles, follow Paul's lead?"

If Gal 2 is after Acts 15, then you have an ineffective council--but I've already covered this.

If Galatians 2 and Acts 15 are parallel, then someone--either Paul, or pseudo-Luke--is "spinning" the narrative ... and frankly, of the two, I'm likely to pick pseudo-Luke. His account is later: it's more formal and prepared, rather than the (obviously) personal--and passionate--Galatians.

Now, admittedly, if we eliminate possibility #3, then #1 (your suggested possibility) is the most likely ... the problem here is that you cannot present evidence as to why the two events are not parallel, as most scholars of my aquaintance do. To support your argument, you must insist on the a priori statement that the Bible cannot contradict itself ... which immediately takes your statement from the realm of scholarship to the realm of faith.

James, I have absolutely no problem with "faith-based" statements ... but do you understand why I cannot accept such a statement in favor of what the text plainly says? Ah--before you make that objection, yes: I know the text does not explicitly state that these two events are the same. But you have to admit that if there is a parallel, this is it.


Well, again, I find in Gal. 2 the roots of what would become that larger complex; I even see the beginnings of the Ebionites in those who "lost" in Acts 15.
Ehhh... The Ebionites specifically--I don't think so. The Ebionites saw Jesus as solely and strictly human ... they did not even see Him as the Messiah, but as the last of the Prophets. Now, where I see one good possibility is in Jerome's reference to the Nazarenes, "who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law." Some of the ECF equated the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, but Jerome did not.


Yes, because as I noted, what Peter did because of ritual purity had clear implications for salvation -- though I don't think Peter realized it. At the same time, it is clearly not a "works vs faith" issue (which the Jews did not see as dichotomous anyway).
Well, you and I gravely disagree on the "Semitic Totality Concept"--I hold it as an anachronistic projection, but right now I don't have the time to defend that thesis, so I'll have to agree to disagree with that specifically for now.

However, while we'll have to disagree on the STC for now, I would like to hear your views of my analysis above.

Justin

[jpholding]

Howdy,




If Gal 2 is before Acts 15, then you have Paul shuttling back and forth between Antioch and Jerusalem, in a trip that no other source attests.

? -- why is not Acts 15 the attestion of the trip?


Additionally, you have a meeting between Paul and the "Pillars of the Church" where Paul is clearly told to go to the Gentiles, yet when one of those self-same Pillars comes to Antioch, he eats for a while with the Gentiles, but then--when the messengers from James comes--ceases doing so. Admittedly, Peter could be pretty thick from time to time ... but would James have not taken steps to avoid trouble in the Antioch Church by telling the messengers "Hey, the church in Antioch has a lot of Gentiles, follow Paul's lead?"

Yes, Peter was thick, and peer pressure and conformity would have been a quite serious influence on these people as collectivists. As for James I expect he was innocent of all knowledge of what happened (for Paul does not condemn him, nor clearly, the men "from" him) and did not anticipate that Peter would have any problems, in light of Acts 10. I think this was Peter's problem only, one of his own creation, on the spot in Antioch; but because he was so influential, his behavior could easily have influenced others.


To support your argument, you must insist on the a priori statement that the Bible cannot contradict itself ... which immediately takes your statement from the realm of scholarship to the realm of faith.

Well -- I don't see myself doing anything that secular historians do not do to resolve seelming contradictions between texts...faith really has nought to do with it. I'd grant the same grace to Tacitus or Josephus.


Ehhh... The Ebionites specifically--I don't think so. The Ebionites saw Jesus as solely and strictly human ... they did not even see Him as the Messiah, but as the last of the Prophets. Now, where I see one good possibility is in Jerome's reference to the Nazarenes, "who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law." Some of the ECF equated the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, but Jerome did not.

I'll take either one. :smile:

[technomage]

? -- why is not Acts 15 the attestion of the trip?
Because Acts 15 too closely parallels Gal 2. Yeah, I know--you're about to accuse me of a circular argument, and you're right. But hold on a minute, and hear me out.

James, apologetics is not a historical discipline--among other attributes, it's a rhetorical discipline ... and I mean the word "rhetorical" in its most positive connotation. Apologetics, as you know, is the philosophical reconciliation of doctrines that are (or seem to be) potentially in conflict. Apologetics is partisan--not that there's anything wrong with that, in the context of apologetics.

I'm not looking at this from an apologetic context--I'm looking at this from a historical context. In a historical context, the focus of Bible study is on determining the facts, using the texts as they stand (and whatever additional tools, such as other texts, archaeology, and sociology, may be useful).

Historically speaking--as you know--most historians and (IIRC) even a majority of Bible scholars state that Acts 15 and Gal 2 are the same event. The two passages are written from different points of view, to be sure, and the depiction of events is quite different, but that's to be expected. The books of the Bible were never intended as historical documents--they are polemic documents, intended to argue a specific point of view.

So the history is well established--but then here comes an apologist. The apologist has a partisan view that seeks the reconciliation of potentially conflicting views. Yet unlike doctrine, history deals with documented events--and to reconcile this passage, the apologist must argue that the historical analysis is wrong: that--in the absence of any evidence, and flatly contradicting what evidence is available--the two depictions that are so dramatically similar are actually depictions of different events.

James, it has often been said that faith is the ability to believe, despite a lack of evidence: and faith like this I greatly respect. But when faith becomes the ability to believe in spite of the evidence--when faith becomes a way to turn the mind from fact to a preferred belief that does not match fact--then that is no longer faith, but delusion.

Case in point: my parents adhere to YEC cosmology. My father is a trained engineer, broadly read in the sciences--yet he sat there this Christmas and told me that the Australopithecine fossils found in Africa are "frauds." Not misinterpretation ... not error: fraud. He has used his faith as a device to not only believe in the absence of evidence, but to reject whatever evidence he does not deem supportive to his chosen beliefs.

James, I love my father, and I greatly respect him ... but I cannot fathom this deliberate rejection of the world around us. By the same token, I have the greatest amount of respect for you ... but I cannot fathom why you would assume that hsitory must be altered to satisfy your interpretation that the Bible cannot demonstrate the prejudices, biases, and even the arguments and divisions within the Primitive Church.

Is your explanation possible? Yes. But it is not the closest match for the text, as written. Your argument adds an additional layer of complexity that is not supported by the text.

Reading the text as it stands, Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians giving his views of the events that led to his confrontation with Peter. Pseudo-Luke, writing prhaps thirty or so years later, writes a sanitized acount that does its best to cover over the conflicts within the Church.


Well -- I don't see myself doing anything that secular historians do not do to resolve seelming contradictions between texts...faith really has nought to do with it. I'd grant the same grace to Tacitus or Josephus.
I don't. If Tacitus or Josephus makes an error, or "spins" an account, I'll call them out on it. This is what secular historians do--they note the contradictions. They don't try to explain them away.

Justin