I mentioned in my previous posts that there are discrepancies between Paul’s letters and the book of Acts in both major and minor ways, and in my last post I dealt with some differences that appear when one looks closely at the details (the issue I addressed: what does Paul do immediately upon his conversion).  There are many instances like that throughout Acts:  if you compare what Paul has to say with what Acts has to say, on the same topic or about the same  event, you will find differences, and often these differences matter a lot to the overall narrative.

There are also of differences that emerge from the overall portrayal of Paul and his Christian mission.   In this post I’ll deal with one example, Paul’s relationship with the other Apostles.

In both Acts and Paul’s letters its clear that Paul had relations those who were apostles before him, chiefly the former disciples of Jesus (Peter, John, etc.) and Jesus’ own brother James, who was to become the leader of the church in Jerusalem.  When you read the book of Acts there is no ambiguity whatsoever about how Paul relates to these people.  He is introduced to them by Barnabas and they immediately welcome him, after some initial hesitancy (ch. 9).

Of yet greater importance,

  in the book of Acts, Paul’s entire mission to the Gentiles is endorsed with a unified voice by the Jerusalem apostles.   The big issue facing the early church involved the relationship of the Jewish messiah to the non-Jewish peoples.  For someone to be a follower of Jesus, do they have to become circumcised and begin to follow the laws and customs of Judaism?   The apostle Paul, both in his own letters and in Acts, insists that the answer is Absolutely Not.   The salvation brought by the Jewish messiah is for all people, not just for Jews, and one does not have to become a Jew in order to share in that salvation.

Acts goes out of its way to stress that everyone – including the Jerusalem apostles – was completely on board with this view.   In the narrative of Acts, it is actually Peter, not Paul, who first learns this lesson from God (ch. 10), and then acts upon it by converting a Gentile, the centurion Cornelius (ch. 11).   Then, after Paul’s first missionary journey to Gentile lands, at a conference called in Jerusalem to deal with the issue (do the Gentiles need to be circumcised), there is rousing support for Paul’s view among all the people that matter, with James and Peter speaking up for Paul’s position (ch. 15).

Here in Acts there is no opposition to Paul among the other apostles; on the contrary, Paul and the others see eye-to-eye in every way on this issue – and on all others.   Acts is keenly determined to show that there were no splits in the apostolic band, of any kind, whatsoever.   Outsiders to the group may have different opinions.  But these false beliefs are quickly and decisively put down by the apostolic unity.

You get a very different view of things from Paul.  To be fair – and to avoid being too one sided – Paul does on a number of occasions claim that his views are precisely those of the apostles before him (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:22-24; 15:3-5).   But there are instances where it is quite clear that Paul and the others do not get along or see eye-to-eye on issues of fundamental importance (in contrast to Acts).   The key example has to do with Paul’s conflict with Peter in Antioch, as narrated in Galatians 2.

Paul and Peter were both in the city, with its Christian community, which included Gentiles.   They were both enjoying “table fellowship” with the Gentile Christians – meaning they were eating their meals together.  This could be a problem for strict Jews, because it could involve breaking rules for kosher.   And then something significant happened: some “men from James” (i.e., the leader of the church in Jerusalem – a church that was, of course, Jewish in its composition) arrived, and for some unspecified reason, Peter stopped eating with the Gentile Christians.

Scholars have had long and heated debates over what the actual situation was.  In my view, it was probably that these Jewish Christians (from James) thought that it was important for Jews to continue behaving like Jews, even if they believed in Jesus; and Peter, so as not to cause them any offense, agreed to do so while they were in town.

Paul did not see this as a sensible compromise.  On the contrary, he went ballistic.  He publicly attacked Peter and went off in a huff.  In Paul’s view, not eating with Gentiles meant assuming that the Law continued to have abiding force after the messiah had come, and that view compromised the very nature of the Gospel, which was for all people, Jew and Gentile.

Paul is clear: there was a rift between Peter and himself.   And Paul never indicates that it was ever healed.  James appears to be on one side of this dispute (by implication); Paul on the other; Peter somewhere in the middle (which for Paul meant he was on the “other side”).

The other thing Paul never reports is who won the argument in Antioch, in the eyes of most of those who were present.   Since Paul does not indicate that the church in Antioch agreed with him, a lot of critical scholars (most of them?) have concluded that Peter probably was seen as having the stronger position.   Paul in any event was angry and saw this view of Peter’s as a major assault on his understanding of the salvation brought about by Christ – not as a minor issue.

Acts does not mention this episode and gives no reason to think there ever was a split in the apostolic ranks.  On the contrary, in Acts Paul and the others are simpatico from the very beginning and there is never any rift.  If you read Acts as a historical narrative that describes things “as they really happened” in the early church, you get a very, very different view from the one given by Paul himself.